Demolition of the exisitng dwellings and ancillary
structures, construction of a seven (7) storey residential flat building
comprising of fifty one units and basment parking

3.2

DA2017/0114

18 Marine Drive Oatley

Alterations and additions to dwelling - additional levels
to dwelling to form a multi-level dwelling house, new terrace and pavillion
to rear and new garage

3.3

PP2017/0002

12-14 Pindari Road Peakhurst Heights

Revised Planning Proposal - Rezone site from SP2
Infrastructure (Church and Community Purposes) to R2 Low Density Residential
with maximum FSR of 1:1 and building height of 9m

4. Confirmation of Minutes by Chair

Georges
River Council – Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel Tuesday, 5
December 2017

Page 4

REPORT TO
GEORGES RIVER COUNCIL

IHAP MEETING OF Tuesday, 05 December 2017

IHAP Report No

3.1

Application No

DA2017/0129

Site Address & Ward Locality

15-21 Hampton Court Road Carlton

Kogarah Bay Ward

Proposal

Demolition of the exisitng
dwellings and ancillary structures, construction of a seven (7) storey
residential flat building comprising of fifty one units and basment parking

Report Author/s

Development Assessment Officer

Owners

Michael Voulgarakis

Applicant

Marsland

Zoning

Zone R3 Medium Density Residential

Date Of Lodgement

20/06/2017

Submissions

Seven (7)

Cost of Works

$13,504.592

Reason for Referral to IHAP

Unresolved sumbissions and
LEP standard non-compliance

Recommendation

That the application be approved in accordance with the
conditions included in the report.

Site Plan

Executive Summary

Proposal

1. Council
is in receipt of an application for the demolition of the existing dwellings
ancillary structures and the construction of a seven (7) storey residential
flat building comprising fifty one (51) units and basement parking on the
subject site.

Site and
Locality

2. The
subject site is located on the northern side of Hampton Court Road between
Buchanan Street to the east and Jubilee Avenue to the west. The subject site,
which currently consists of 4 individual lots, is formally identified as Lots
103, 104, 105 and 106 in DP 1753. The subject site has a total frontage
of 46.3m, a site depth of 43m and a total area of 1977m2.

Zoning and KLEP
2012 Compliance

3. The
site is zoned R3-Medium Density Residential under KLEP 2012 and the proposal is
a permissible form of development with Council’s consent. The
proposed development satisfies all relevant clauses contained within KLEP 2012
apart from Clause 4.3-Height of Buildings where a minor height exceedance is
presented. A Clause 4.6 variation to this development standard has been sought
which is detailed in the later stages of this report.

Kogarah
Development Control Plan 2013 (KDCP 2013)

4. The
proposed development generally satisfies the relevant deign provisions of the
DCP.

6. Having
regard to the Heads of Consideration under Section 79C(1) of the Environmental
Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and following a detailed assessment of the
proposal Development Application No. 129/2017 should
be approved subject to conditions.

Report in Full

Proposal

7. Council
is in receipt of an application for the demolition of the existing dwellings
ancillary structures and the construction of a seven (7) storey residential
flat building comprising fifty one (51) units and basement parking on the
subject site.

The Site and
Locality

8. The
subject site is located on the northern side of Hampton Court Road between
Buchanan Street to the east and Jubilee Avenue to the west. The subject site,
which currently consists of 4 individual lots, is formally identified as Lots
103, 104, 105 and 106 in DP 1753.

The subject site
has a total frontage of 46.3m, a site depth of 43m and a total area of 1977m2.

To the rear (north
west) of the subject site are two (2) existing four (4) storey residential flat
buildings addressed to 20 Jubilee Avenue and 1-7 Buchanan Street. The two
residential flat buildings are elevated above the subject site. Adjoining the
subject site to the east is a three (3) storey residential flat building
elevated above the subject site and above the Hampton Court Road footway.
Further east on the eastern corner of Hampton Court Road and Buchanan Street is
a six (6) storey residential flat building.

Across Hampton
Court Road to the south of the subject site are older-style residential flat
buildings of three (3) and four (4) storeys. Adjoining the subject site to the
west are low scale residential flat buildings ranging in scale from two (2) to
three (3) storeys.

Residential
flat building to the rear of the site at 1-7 Buchanan Street

Residential flat
building to the rear of the subject site at 20 Jubilee Avenue

Three
storey residential flat building adjoining the subject site to the east

Two-storey
residential flat building at 23 Hampton Court Road and Three storey residential
flat building at 25 Hampton Court Road

Six
storey residential flat building at 6 Buchanan Street

Four
storey residential flat building at 16 Hampton Court Road

Background

9. The
application was reviewed as part of Council’s Development Advisory
Service (DAS) with a response sent to the
applicant on 18 May 2017. During the DAS process, the application was also
reviewed by the Design Review Panel on 11 May 2017.

The application was submitted with Council on 20 June 2017
and was neighbour notified from 21 July to 4 August 2017 where seven
submissions were received two of which contained petitions. The comments raised
as part of the Development Advisory process were considered by the applicant
and the recommendations outlined in the DAS response letter were integrated as
part of the submitted development application.

The submitted plans were reviewed by the Design Review
Panel during their meeting held on 3 August 2017. The
Panel was generally supportive of the application subject to a number of minor
issues being resolved. The applicant was made aware of these required changes
in an email sent on 15 August 2017.

Architectural
and landscape changes amendments were made and these were submitted with
Council on 22 September 2017. The design modifications made suitably addressed
the Panels comments. These plans and details are relied upon for the
preparation of this report.

Section 79C
Assessment

10. The
following is an assessment of the application
with regard to Section 79C(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act
1979.

(1) Matters
for consideration – general

In
determining an application, a consent authority is to take into consideration
such of the following matters as are of relevance to the development the
subject of the development application:

(a) the
provision of:

(i) any
environmental planning instrument,

Kogarah
Local Environmental Plan 2012 (KLEP 2012)

Part 2 –
Permitted or Prohibited Development

Clause 2.1
– Land Use Zones

11. The
site is zoned R3-Medium Density Residential
under KLEP 2012 and the proposal is a permissible form of development with
Council’s consent.

(a) to provide an appropriate degree of flexibility in
applying certain development standards to particular development,

(b) to achieve better outcomes for and from development by
allowing flexibility in particular circumstances.

(2) Development consent may, subject to this clause, be
granted for development even though the development would contravene a
development standard imposed by this or any other environmental planning
instrument. However, this clause does not apply to a development standard that
is expressly excluded from the operation of this clause.

The "height of buildings map"
associated with this clause specifies that the site has a maximum proposed
height of 21m. In this instance, a maximum height of 22.7m is proposed
resulting in a non-compliance with the Standard. The extent of non-compliance
is diagrammatically detailed in Figures 3 and 4.

The applicant has
submitted a clause 4.6 seeking a variation of the maximum
height of building standard as specified in clause 4.3 of KLEP 2012. The
following reasoning as to why the standard should be varied was provided and is
as follows:

· The height breach is generally limited to a front portion
of the roof slab as well as the recessed lift overrun which provides access to
the communal rooftop garden

· The
height breach is associated with a 5m sloping site from north down to south.

· The
height non-compliance is recessed 10m – 14.75m from the front of the site
and therefore will not be apparent from the Hampton Court Road footway, as
shown on the photomontage below (Figure 5).

Figure 5- Photomontage showing that the top
level and lift overrun will not be visible from the streetscape

· The front portion and rear portion of the built form are
below the height limit, therefore it is considered that the height
non-compliance will not generate any additional amenity impacts to surrounding
neighbours than that of a compliant built form, in regard to overshadowing,
privacy or view loss impacts.

The
applicant addressed each of the relevant criteria under clause 4.6 which were
detailed as follows.

1. Consistency with the objectives of the height
standard in the LEP

Clause 4.3 Height

1.The objectives
of this clause are as follows:

a. to establish the maximum height for buildings,

The proposal is generally compliant with the maximum LEP
height limit applicable to the subject site, with the exception of a portion of
the upper recessed level which has no adverse or unreasonable streetscape or
amenity impacts.

b. to minimise the impact of overshadowing, visual impact
and loss of privacy on adjoining properties and open space areas,

The proposal complies with the height limit at the rear and
sides of the proposed built form. It is therefore considered that the height
non-compliance is not responsible for any additional amenity impacts in regard
to overshadowing, privacy, view loss or streetscape impacts. As shown above,
the height breach is not apparent from the Hampton Court Road footway.

Furthermore, the accompanying shadow diagrams demonstrate
that the proposed height non-compliance is able to be accommodated on the site
whilst retaining 2+ hours of solar access to neighbouring properties on June
21st.

c. to provide appropriate scale and intensity of
development through height controls.

The proposed bulk and scale of the development is compliant
with the FSR standard for the subject site whilst also being consistent with
the density of the recently constructed residential flat development at 6
Buchanan Street, to the east of the subject site. It is considered that the
proposed height variation is minor in nature and does not add to the visual
bulk of the development.

The proposed height is setback in accordance with the
setback provisions whilst the provision of landscaping within the setbacks
softens the visual appearance of the built form when viewed from neighbouring
properties.

2. Consistency with the objectives of the R3 Medium
Density Residential Zone

Objectives of zone:

• To provide for the housing needs of the community
within a medium density residential environment.

• To provide a variety of housing types within a
medium density residential environment.

• To enable other land uses that provide
facilities or services to meet the day to day needs of residents.

The replacement of the existing dwelling houses with a high
quality residential flat building is consistent with the objectives of the R3
Medium density residential zone as it provides for the housing needs of the
community within a medium density residential environment. The proposal also
protects amenity of surrounding residents which confirms that the variation to
the height limit does not raise any inconsistency with the zone objectives.

The proposal provides for a variety of housing types in the
form of 1, 2 and 3 bedroom units, whilst also providing for accessible units.

3. Consistency with State and Regional planning policies

The proposed height variation allows for the orderly and
economic use of land as envisaged by the Environmental Planning and
Assessment Act, 1979. The proposed height allows for achievement of the
building envelope without creating a development with overbearing height, bulk
or scale and without compromising the desired future character of the area.

The proposed height is therefore consistent with the State
and Regional Policies, particularly urban consolidation principles which seek
to provide additional densities near transport and established services.

4. The variation allows for a better planning outcome

It is considered that the proposed height variation
represents a more desirable planning outcome than if it were to maintain strict
compliance with the height limit. The proposed minor height variation is
associated with a high-quality residential flat building which provides for a
high degree of internal amenity. The proposed additional height is able to be
provided on the site without compromising the character of the locality.

The height variation is primarily associated with the lift
overrun which provides access to a high-quality communal rooftop garden. Access
to the communal rooftop garden also facilitates excellent social gathering
opportunities. The communal rooftop space provides for better amenity than if
it were confined to the ground level at the rear of the site. The rooftop
location provides for abundant solar access and access to views. The recessed
and isolated rooftop location from surrounding properties also ensures that
utilisation of this space will not affect the amenity of dwellings either within
or external to the subject proposal.

It is therefore considered that the variation to the height
standard allows for a better planning outcome on the subject site as provision
of the communal garden on the roof contributes to an overall compliant communal
open space as envisaged by the SEPP 65 and DCP controls.

5. There are sufficient environmental grounds to permit
the variation

Outperformance of the internal amenity indicators within
the DCP and ADG in relation to solar access and cross ventilation demonstrate
that there are sufficient environmental grounds to permit the variation. The
height non-compliance does not compromise the internal performance of the
units. Externally, the lack of impact to surrounding properties, particularly
in relation to retention of solar access further displays the suitability of
the proposed height variation in this instance. The height non-compliance will
not be responsible for any greater shadowing to any surrounding property.

Furthermore, the height variation will not interfere with
any views from surrounding properties. There will also be no additional adverse
visual or acoustic privacy impacts generated by the additional height due to
its recessed nature.

The lack of visual bulk impacts (associated with a compliant
FSR) from either the streetscape or private properties surrounding the site
ensures that the articulated and reasonable scale of development has no
unreasonable visual impacts.

The large extent of
landscaping around the perimeter of the built form and in elevated planter beds
contributes to the environmental performance of the proposal, noting that the
proposed landscaped areas substantially outperform that within the Apartment
Design Guide.

Officer Comment:Having regard to the discussion above, it is considered that
compliance with the maximum height standard as specified in clause 4.3 KLEP
2012 is both unreasonable and unnecessary and in this particular case, it has
been demonstrated that there are sufficient environmental grounds to justify
contravening the standard.

Part 5 –
Miscellaneous Provisions

Clause 5.10
– Heritage Conservation

13. The
subject site is not listed as a heritage item in Schedule 5, is not within a
Heritage Conservation Area, nor are there any heritage items that could
potentially be impacted up the proposal.

Part 6 –
Additional Local Provisions

Clause 6.1
– Acid Sulfate Soils

14. The
subject site is not shown as being affected by acid sulfate soils as identified
on the Acid Sulfate Soil Map.

Clause 6.2
– Earthworks

15. The
proposed development will require significant excavation works in order to
accommodate the basement car park. The proposed excavation is the minimum
necessary to achieve a basement and it has been designed to allow for
substantial deep planting areas around the perimeter of the building.

It is considered
that the proposed earthworks are considered acceptable having regard to the
provisions of this clause as the works are not likely to have a detrimental
impact on environmental functions and processes, neighbouring uses, cultural or
heritage items or features of the surrounding land.

Clause 6.3 – Flood Planning

16. The property; 21 Hampton Court Road, Carlton (Lot 103 of DP1753) is
identified as flood affected in the Beverley Park Overland Flow Risk Management
Study and Plan 2007. The Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) level for property has
been identified at 28.25m (AHD). The property is not identified as being
affected by the 1% AEP (1 in 100 year ARI) flood event. As such there are no
specific flood controls for this development proposal.

The development is not required to be assessed with respect to the PMF
level of RL 28.25m (AHD). Development controls would only normally be assessed
in regard to the PMF level for certain situations such as developments that
involve vulnerable users eg. preschools, schools, nursing homes; and
developments where flooding could result in hazardous materials (eg. stored
chemicals) to be at risk of disturbance.

The DCP ‘Water Management Policy. Kogarah Council. August
2006’ does not require assessment of developments impact on flood effects
in regard to the PMF event.

The proposed development was designed having consideration
to the Probable Maximum Flood Levels which was then referred to Council’s
Stormwater Engineer for comment. Council’s Stormwater Engineer advised
that the proposed development satisfies the provisions of this clause in terms
of compatibility, risk to life, impact on the environment and social and
economic costs. In addition, consideration has been given to the provisions of
Section B6 – Water Management of KDCP 2013 and the proposed development
satisfies the relevant controls related to flooding and drainage.

18. The State Environmental Planning Policy (Vegetation in
Non-Rural Areas) 2017 replaces the repealed Clause 5.9 of KLEP 2012
(Preservation of Trees and Vegetation). The intent of this SEPP is consistent
with the objectives of the repealed Standard where the primary aims/objectives
are related to the protection of the biodiversity values of trees and other
vegetation on the site.

Sixteen
low category trees will be lost as a result of this proposal; however, many of
these trees are not visible from the public domain and they consist of small
and insignificant trees. In the context of the loss of trees, a comprehensive
landscape scheme is proposed that includes the planting of semi-mature trees to
be planted within prominent locations.

In this instance, the proposal was referred to
Council’s Tree Management Officer who raised no objection to the removal
of a number of trees on the site subject to replacement planting. Relevant
consent conditions will be imposed.

State Environmental Planning Policy No 55
– Remediation of Land

19. SEPP 55 applies to
the land and pursuant to Section 79C is a relevant consideration.

A review of the available history for the site gives no
indication that the land associated with this development is contaminated. There
were no historic uses that would trigger further site investigations.

The objectives outlined within SEPP55 are considered to be
satisfied.

State Environmental Planning Policy No 65 – Design Quality of
Residential Flat Development (SEPP No 65)

20. The
proposed development is subject to the provisions of SEPP No 65, which aims to
improve the quality of residential flat design in NSW.

The application has been accompanied by a design verification from a
qualified designer that verifies that:

a) He
or she designed or directed the design of the modification, and

b) The
modifications achieve the design quality principles as set out in Part 2 of
SEPP No 65, and

c) The
modifications do not diminish or detract from the design quality, or compromise
the design intent of the approved development.

The application
was referred to the St George Design Review Panel at Pre DA stage on 11 May
2017, and then also on 3 August 2017 for formal DA comments. The
following response details both the Panels initial and supplementary comments.

Context

21. 11
May 2017 (Pre DA)

This is one of the last remaining undeveloped sites in Hampton Court
Road. The opposite side of the road has been developed with three (3)/four (4)
storey walk up buildings representative of earlier decades. These are screened
by attractive, dense, very mature native trees. On the side of the road where
the development is taking place there is very little street planting and
unattractive and intrusive overhead wiring and telegraph poles. Their removal
and under grounding of these is extremely desirable.

The existing topography of the site falls approximately 5m from
north to south. This has implications for the way the building sits on the site
and for level access arrangements.

3
August 2017 (DA Comment)

The project responds well to context.

Applicant
Comment:Noted

Built Form and
Scale

22. 11
May 2017 (Pre DA )

The building is of appropriate form and scale for the evolving
context, and is very close to complying with FSR, height and setback controls.
The Panel supports minor exemptions to the height limit in order to facilitate
access to roof garden common areas.

Some minor lowering of the building as suggested by the architect
would assist in improving the relationship of the building with the street.

General planning and organisation of the building is well considered
and supported.

3
August 2017 (DA Comment)

The Panel believe that the street entry could be rationalised so
that the 1:20 slope is more integrated with the paved surface, and does not create
a pinch point with the steps as currently shown. As proposed the entry
restricts the garden in front of Unit 1.02 which is unfortunate. It is
recommended that the amount of hard paving is reduced, and bike racks relocated
to increase garden space.

The OSD tank must be moved out of the deep soil zone. Clarification
should be provided as to the location of any substation or hydrants (fire
boosters) required. These should be clear of the front verge and ideally
adjacent to the driveway integrated into the building.

Applicants
Comment: The extent of paving at the Level 1 entry area has been reduced
and bike racks repositioned so that the resultant increase in the landscape
area in front of unit 1.02 can be used to provide additional screen planting in
accordance with the DRP recommendation. (See figure 6 below)

Figure 6- Image
depicting landscaping increase in front of Unit 1.02

Technical issues
prevented the relocation of the OSD tank onto the podium; as a result we have
proposed a reduction in the tank levels to allow a min 600mm of soil over the
structure and an increase to the planting at the rear of the
site. (See Figure 7 below)

The
location of the sprinkler/ hydrant booster and water meter have been
indicated on the drawings.

Figure 7- Image
depicting soil depth over OSD structure

Officer Comment: Council’s
stormwater engineer was consulted in regards to the suggested relocation of the
tank onto the podium. He also confirmed that this relocation could pose future
technical issues with the ongoing operation of the tank. He advised that the
proposed location of the tank is ideal in this situation. While the revisions
did not specifically undertake the amendments as recommended by the Panel in
respect to tank relocation, the reduction in the tank levels to allow a minimum
600mm soil cover does allow for planting over the tank and therefore is
considered to achieve the desired objective.

Density

23. 11 May 2017 (Pre DA)

Close to compliance and acceptable. (This was related to a Pre DA
application providing a minor FSR Non-Compliance)

3
August 2017 (DA Comment)

Acceptable (The proposal now complies with Council’s Density controls
of 2:1.

Sustainability

24. Subject to BASIX and acceptable.

Landscape

25. 11 May 2017 (Pre DA)

The Panel recommends that the entry arrangement should be
reconsidered to fully address the streetscape and entry requirements. See also
below under ‘Amenity’.

The visualisation on the cover page of the drawing package needs to
reflect the proposed landscape design. The landscape plans are acceptable as a
concept but need to show plant species type and typical details.

New tree planting to the streetscape verge is essential and the
overhead wires should be undergrounded if at all possible.

The communal area at the rear of the property provides good social
amenity space and captures the northern aspect very well. The addition of a
water feature is a good element to provide visual delight from the street
entrance to the rear of the property.

The communal roof garden is well considered but requires further
detailing as above, and a small enclosed communal room as recommended below
under ‘Housing Diversity and Social Interaction’.

3 August 2017 (DA Comment)

In general the landscape positively contributes to the project. The
Panel does however recommend the following changes to improve amenity:

· Remove the proposed BBQ and deck in the ground level communal space
and replace with planting including trees.

It is proposed to under-ground the over-head wires in accordance with the
panel’s recommendations and incorporate street trees on the verge in
accordance with Councils’ public domain policy.

The BBQ area and stepped retaining wall was removed from the ground floor
communal open space and replaced with planting in accordance with the
panel’s recommendations.

The roof-top communal open space planting has been reconfigured to reduce
the extent of hard paving with the addition of planting along the side of the lift
lobby. The access door to the WC was also moved to provide direct access from
the roof-top and avoid a sight-line from unit entries.

Figure 8- Amended photomontage depicting roof planting

Officer Comment:The proposed modifications are
satisfactory and address the Panels comments. As a number of sites remain
undeveloped in both the immediate and local context, the relocation of wires
underground will be sought with any other developments of this scale in order
to ensure street tree planting along the verge.

A
consent condition will be imposed in relation to the relocation of the overhead
wires.

Amenity

26. 11 May 2017 (Pre DA)

The general level of amenity is of good standard and compliant with
ADG requirements.

The main entrance is unacceptable and insecure as proposed. It
requires complete reconsideration in terms of width, social gathering
opportunity with seating, visual connection with lifts, etc, which will require
reduction in the size of adjoining Unit 1.03.

A small covered area outside area the entrance should also be
provided.

Access to bicycle storage area is circuitous and needs redesign
internally.

3
August 2017 (DA Comment)

See comments above regarding the front entry, the ground level
communal open space and the roof terrace.

Applicant Comment:The front
entry, ground level COS and roof terrace was redesigned as described under
‘built form and scale/landscaping.

Safety

27. 11 May 2017 (Pre DA)

See comments relating to main entrance

3
August 2017 (DA Comment)

Acceptable

Housing Diversity and Social Interaction

28. 11 May 2017 (Pre DA)

The rooftop communal space and northern space at ground level
together would provide excellent social gathering opportunities. The roof top
space should include a small enclosed communal room with kitchenette, toilet
facilities, etc.

Whilst the built form and scale is acceptable, the materials and
finishes plan illustrates a dominance of grey cladding and tiles. The Panel
recommends reconsidering the colour palette with a possibility of adding some
touches of brighter colour together with greater warmth of the bricks on the
lower four (4) floors, and much lighter tone of the cladding of the top floors.

Also the public/private interface landscape treatment needs
substantial improvement along Hampton Court Road by way of planting and other
landscape initiatives.

3
August 2017 (DA Comment)

The proposal positively contributes to the streetscape and
neighbourhood character.

Applicant Comment: Noted

Officer Comment : The proposal is considered to appropriate in both
scale and form.

Deemed State
Environmental Planning Policy – Georges River Catchment

30. All
stormwater from the proposed development can be treated in accordance with
Council’s Water Management Policy and
would satisfy the relevant provisions of theDeemed State Environmental
Planning Policy – Georges River Catchment

(ii) any
draft environmental planning instrument that is or has been placed on public
exhibition and details of which have been notified to the consent authority,
and

31. There
are no other draft planning instruments that are applicable to this site.

(iii) any
development control plan,

Kogarah
Development Control Plan 2013 (KDCP 2013)

32. The
proposed development is subject to the provisions of the Kogarah Development
Control Plan 2013 (KDCP2013). The following comments are made with respect to
the proposal satisfying the objectives and controls contained within the DCP.

Frontage

Council’s
DCP outlines that a 20m frontage is required for residential flat building. In
this case, an overall frontage width of 46.3m is provided complying with
Council DCP controls.

Setbacks

Front

The proposed setbacks generally comply with the
DCP controls by providing a 5m setback for 20% of the width of the building and
a setback greater than 7m for 80% of the width of the building. The proposed
front setbacks are consistent with the adjoining properties to the north-east
and south-west. The proposed siting of the development allows for appropriate
solar access to surrounding properties, as well as maintaining a suitable level
of visual and acoustic privacy.

Side/Rear

The proposal also provides for minimum 6m side
and rear setbacks which increase to 9m when above 5 storeys. Such setbacks are
consistent with the ADG and override the provisions of the DCP. It is
considered that setbacks are appropriate for the proposal and the subject site
as they allow for abundant landscaping within the front, side and rear
setbacks.

Site Coverage

A maximum site
coverage of 45% is applicable to residential flat buildings equating to 889.65m2
in this instance. The proposal provides 850.1m2 of site coverage or
43% complying with Council controls.

Impervious Area

Residential flat
buildings are to have a maximum impervious area of 55% equating to 1087m2
in this case. The proposal does not comply with this requirement, having 68%
(1344m2) of impervious areas on the site. The variation is
considered acceptable as generous levels of deep soil landscaping are provided
along the external perimeters of the site allowing for the planting of
appropriately sized trees and shrubs.

Common Open Space

Common open space
for residential flat building developments shall be provided at a rate of 30m2
per dwelling for those units that have balconies as their only form of private
open space. Therefore, a minimum of 1320m2 is required.

The proposed
development incorporates 27% or 533m² of common open space area which
should be supported as the amount of area provided exceeds the ADG requirements
of 25% or (494m²). The areas provided will offer a desirable functional
design that will offer a high amenity and will receive ample solar access.

Private Open
Space

Where provided, courtyards for ground floor units must be a minimum of
35m2/ dwelling, with a minimum dimension of 3m. Otherwise all dwellings must be
provided with a

balcony 12m2 in area with a minimum dimension of 3m.

In accordance with clause 6A of SEPP No 65 the
provisions within a DCP that relate to "private open space and
balconies" have no effect and the provisions of the ADG are applicable. The provision of private open space in the way of ground
floor terraces and upper level balconies with the following areas complying
with the SEPP 65 requirements:

1 bedroom Apartments: 8-17m2

2 bedroom apartments: 10-73m2

3 bedroom apartments: 12-40m2

The proposal
complies with these requirements.

Other
Requirements

Solar
Access

33. The
DCP states that at least 50% of the primary open space area of the proposed
development should have access to a minimum of 3 hour hours of sunlight between
9am and 3pm on 21 June. All units will receive the required amount of solar
access. In addition, the DCP requires at least 50% of the neighbouring existing
principal open space or windows to main living areas must receive a minimum of
3 hours of sunlight between 9am and 3pm on 21 June.

The architectural plans demonstrate that the development as
a whole receives in excess of the minimum solar access to living and private
open spaces. In regards to overshadowing, the proposal will generally cast much
of its shadow over Hampton Court Road. Having said this, the neighbouring low
scale residential flat building located at 23 Hampton Court Road will incur
additional shadow impact to its north-eastern elevation. An elevation shadowing
impact to this elevation is detailed in Figure
10 below. As can be evidenced upon review of this analysis, the development
will not cast any significant shadow over this neighbouring building from 12pm
onwards. Therefore, the proposal complies with the solar access requirements to
neighbouring development.

34. The
proposed development complies with the setback requirements contained within
KDCP 2013 but in any case, has been designed having regard to the separation
requirements of Part 3F- Visual Privacy within the ADG. The development makes
provisions for privacy screens on balconies while providing a generous
landscape buffer around the perimeter of the site enabling reasonable levels of
external and internal privacy to be maintained by neighbouring development.

Traffic and Parking

35. In accordance with
Council DCP controls a total of 70 residential and 10 visitor spaces are required to be provided. Currently, the proposal provides 56
residential and 11 visitor spaces resulting in a non-compliance with Council
controls.

While a parking shortfall is presented, the NSW
Government has adopted the "Apartment Design Guide" which will be
used in conjunction with the State Environmental Planning Policy NO.65 - Design
Quality of Residential Flat Development (SEPP 65). Objective 3J-l of the Design
Guide states that sites within 800m of a railway station are to satisfy the
minimum parking requirements specified in the RMS "Guide to Traffic
Generating Developments" (October 2002). The site is located 300m from
Carlton Station so this criteria can be utilised.

The RMS Guidelines nominate that a high density
residential flat building refers to a building containing 20 or more dwellings.
As the proposed development contains 51 dwellings, the following parking
requirements for high density residential flat buildings in Metropolitan
Sub-Regional Centres have been adopted:

1 bedroom units 0.6
space per dwelling

2 bedroom units 0.9
spaces per dwelling

3 bedroom units 1.4
spaces per dwelling

Visitor parking 1
space per 5 dwellings

Application of those requirements to the
proposed development yields a parking requirement of 43 residential and 11
visitor car parking spaces. The proposal provides 56 residential spaces and 11
visitor spaces complying with these requirements.

Adaptable and
Accessible Housing

36. The
proposal includes six (6) complying with Council controls. The units are
provided throughout the development. Consent conditions will be imposed
requiring that the adaptable housing be certified to ensure compliance with the
relevant design standards.

Section 94
Contributions

37. The proposed development requires payment of $426,532.75 of Section 94
contributions based on the provisions of Council’s Section 94 Plan
applicable to Precinct two (2).

(iv) any
matters prescribed by the regulations, that apply to the land to which the
development application relates,

38. Not
applicable.

(b)
the likely impacts of that development, including environmental impacts
on both the natural and built environments, and social and economic impacts in
the locality,

39. The
proposed development is of a scale and character that is in keeping with other
dwellings being constructed in the locality. Accordingly, the proposal is not
considered to have a significant impact on the natural and built environment of
the locality.

(c) Site
suitability,

40. It
is considered that the proposed development is of a scale and design that is
suitable for the site having regard to its size and shape, its topography,
vegetation and relationship to adjoining developments.

(d) any
submissions made in accordance with this Act or the regulations,

41. In
accordance with the provisions of Section A2 – Public Notification of
KDCP 2013 application was placed on neighbour notification 21 July to 4 August 2017 where seven (7) submissions were received two of which contained petitions totalling thirty-nine
(39) signatures. The concerns raised in the submissions are summarised below:

1. Height
Breach Impacts

Comment: As
detailed earlier in this report, a minor height breach is presented. This
breach will not add to the visual scale of the building when viewed from the
street nor is it anticipated to result in any additional amenity Impacts to the
neighbouring properties, so is considered acceptable on the merits of this
application.

2. Damage
during excavation

Comment:
Consent conditions will be imposed requiring the provision of a dilapidation
report for potentially affected properties (To be determined by structural
engineer) and a geotechnical report. In regards to the ongoing operation of the
sewer to neighbouring properties, this is the sole responsibility of the
parties undertaking the building works on the site.

3. Noise
from use of common open space area on roof

Comment: A
landscape buffer has been provided to the common open space area located on the
roof of the development that will assist in mitigating both perceived and
actual noise impacts. Further, the location of the open space on the roof level
will ensure that any noise generation will be confined to the roof level and
will not be adjacent to any window or open space areas of neighbouring
development which currently sit at a lower built level.

4. Overshadowing

Comment: As
discussed in the body of this report, the anticipated shadow cast by the
subject development ensures neighbouring buildings will still receive the
minimum amount of solar access. See discussion under solar access of this
report.

5. Loss
of woodland views and green outlook from 1-7 Buchanan Street.

Comment:
The views from the building at 1-7 Buchanan Street are in south westerly
direction over the subject site. The views are not iconic and are limited to
skyline views and distant tree canopies in accordance with the court planning
principles established in Tenacity Vs Warringah. Given that the current
views are enjoyed directly across the subject site over a side boundary,
retention of these views would be unreasonable and would severely limit the
development potential of the subject site.

6. Loss
of property value

Comment:
Loss of property value as a result of this development is a claim that cannot
be substantiated.

7. Overall
amenity

Comment:The proposed building is generously separated from the
neighbouring development in line with the separation requirements outlined in
the ADG. The introduction of appropriate
window placements that have been offset as far as practicable from neighboring
glazed areas and the provision of window areas along the that are not excessive
in scale, will ensure that privacy impacts potentially posed by this
development are minimised.

8. Scale of Development

Comment:
The proposal complies with Council’s FSR controls and only marginally
exceeds the height standards. The development is of an anticipated scale
envisaged by KLEP 2012 as amended. A development of a similar scale has been
approved and constructed at 7-9 Hampton Court Road in accordance with the KLEP
2012 amendments allowing for increase heights and densities throughout what was
previously referred to as the Kogarah LGA.

9. Traffic
and Parking

Comment:As discussed in the body of this report, the development
provides in excess of the minimum parking requirements as outlined within 3J-l
of the Design Guide which stipulates that that sites within 800m of a railway
station are to satisfy the minimum parking requirements specified in the RMS
"Guide to Traffic Generating Developments" (October 2002).

The proposal was referred to
Council’s Traffic Engineer for comment who raised no objection to the
proposal on Traffic or Parking grounds. Council’s Traffic Engineer also
referred to the Traffic Assessment carried out by Traffix which stipulated that
the net traffic impact of this development is;

o An increase of 6 vehicle trips per
hour during AM Peak (or one vehicle per 10 minutes)

o An increase of 4 vehicle trips per
hour during PM Peak (or one vehicle per 15 minutes)

This increase is
considered minor on the local road network.

10. Stormwater
disposal

Comment:
The proposed development was referred to Council’s Stormwater Engineer
for comment who raised no objection to the proposed stormwater drainage method.

(e) the
public interest.

42. The
proposed development is of a scale and character that does not conflict with
the public interest.

Conclusion

43. The
application has been assessed having regard to the Heads of Consideration under
Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the
provisions of KLEP 2012 and KDCP 2013.

Following detailed assessment it is considered that Development
Application No 129/2017 should be approved subject to the following conditions.

SECTION A - General
Conditions

The conditions
that follow in this Section A of the Notice of Determination are general
conditions which are imposed to ensure that the development is carried out in
accordance with the development consent.

(1) Approved
Plans of Consent

The development
must be implemented in accordance with the approved plans, specifications and
details listed below and any supporting information submitted with the
Development Application except as amended by any conditions attached to the
Development Consent:

SECTION B –Prior to the Issue of a
Construction Certificate or Demolition Conditions

The conditions
that follow in this Section B of the Notice of Determination relate to the
payment of fees, amendments being made to the proposal, further investigation
being undertaken or the preparation of documentation that must be complied with
prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate or Demolition.

Note: A
copy of the Construction Certificate shall be forwarded to Council prior to
commencement of construction where Council is not the certifier who issued the
Construction Certificate.

(2) Asset & Building Fees

Payment of the following amounts as
detailed below:

· *Builders Long
Service Levy of $135,045.92

· Driveway Design
and Inspection Fee (Dwelling) of $
940.00

· Driveway and
Restoration Works Design
Inspection Fee of $
33,300.00

· Asset Inspection
Fee of $
113.30

*Note: The
Builders Long Service Levy quoted is based on the market value of the proposed
building works and the Levy Rate applicable at the time of assessing the
Development Application and may be subject to change prior to payment.

(3) Restoration
Deposit

A deposit of $33,300.00 shall be lodged with Council to ensure the
completion of the following works to be completed at the applicant's expense

* Construction
of new kerb and gutter across all street frontages of the site.

* Construction
of new footpath across all street frontages of the site.

* All
associated road pavement restorations.

* Installation
of turf as required across all street frontages.

These works are to be in accordance with plans and specifications to be
issued by Council.

(4) Section 94
Index

Section 94
Contributions are to be paid as detailed below in the following condition, and
until paid all contributions will be indexed four (4) times a year (on the
following dates) to allow for the cost increases: 31 January, 30 April, 31 July
and 31 October.

(5) Section 94
Contributions

As at the date of
Development Consent the following contributions have been levied on the subject
development under Section 94 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act,
1979 and the nominated Section 94 Contributions Plans:

No.1 – Roads and Traffic
Management – Residential

$ 6,389.66

No.5 – Open Space 2007

$404,675.62

No.9 – Kogarah Libraries
– Buildings

$ 9,029.51

No.9 – Kogarah Libraries
– Books

$ 6,437.96

TOTAL

$426,532.75

Any of the above Section
94 Contributions Plans may be inspected at the Georges River Council Customer
Service Centres.

(6) Dilapidation
Report

Prior to issue of
any construction certificate or commencement of any demolition or earth works
on site, the applicant shall submit, for acceptance by the Principal Certifying
Authority (PCA), with a copy forwarded to Council where Council is not the PCA,
a full dilapidation report on the visible and structural condition of the
following properties;

(i) All
neighbouring buildings likely to be affected by the excavation as determined by
the consulting engineer.

The report must be
completed by a suitably qualified consulting structural/ geotechnical engineer
as determined necessary by that professional based on the excavations for the
proposal, the subsoil conditions and any recommendations of a geotechnical
report for the site. The report shall have regard to protecting the applicant
from spurious claims for structural damage and shall be verified by all
stakeholders as far as practicable.”

Reports relating
to properties that refuse access to carry out inspections to complete the
dilapidation report, after being given reasonable written notice to request
access (at least 14 days) at a reasonable time (8.00am-6.00pm), are not to hold
up the release of the Construction Certificate.

(7) Soil and
Water Management

A Soil and Water
Management Control Plan, incorporating contour levels and prepared in
accordance with Environmental Site Management Policy shall be submitted to
Council detailing all measures to control soil erosion and sedimentation runoff
from the site during excavation and construction activities.

(8) SEPP No 65
Certification

A design verification statement from a qualified designer shall be
submitted that verifying that the plans and specifications achieve the design
quality of the development for which consent was granted having regard to the
design quality principles of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65.

(9) Adaptable
Housing Compliance

The proposed development including the nominated adaptable units shall
comply with the adaptable housing provisions of AS4299 – Adaptable
Housing and AS1498 – Access and Mobility (Parts 1 and 2). The Adaptable
Housing checklist and circulation diagram demonstrating compliance shall be
submitted.

(10) Ausgrid Sub Station

The applicant is
to confer with Ausgrid to determine if an electricity distribution substation
is required. If so, shall be incorporated within the Construction Certificate
and it will be necessary for the final film survey plan to be endorsed with an
area having dimensions 5m x 4m over the location of the proposed electricity
distribution substation to be dedicated to Council as public roadway, or as
otherwise agreed with Ausgrid. Ausgrid’s requirements are to be met prior
to release of the occupation certificate.

(11) Clearances to Overhead
Mains

If any part of the
proposed structure, within 5m of a street frontage, is higher than 3m above
footway level, the applicant is to confer with Ausgrid to determine if
satisfactory clearances to any existing overhead mains will be affected. If so,
the applicant is to make arrangements with Ausgrid for any necessary
modification to the electrical network in question.

These works to be
at the applicant’s expense and Ausgrid’s requirements are to be met
prior to actual construction commencing on site or as agreed with Ausgrid.

(12) Sydney Water (DA Only)

The approved plans
must be processed through Sydney Water to determine whether the development
will affect any Sydney Water asset’s (sewer and water mains, stormwater
drains and/or easements) and if any further requirements need to be met.
An approval receipt will be issued by Sydney Water which is to be submitted to
Council or the Principal Certifying Authority.

· Sydney Water Tap
in – see Plumbing, building and developing and then Sydney Water Tap in;
and

· Building
over/adjacent to a Sydney Water Asset - see Plumbing, building and developing,
building then Building Approvals or telephone 13 20 92.

(13) Stormwater Plan

The submitted
stormwater plan has been assessed and approved as a concept plan only. No
detailed assessment of the design has been undertaken. A Detailed Stormwater
Plan and supporting information of the proposed on-site stormwater management
system is to be submitted. The required details in this Plan and the relevant
checklist are presented in the document ‘Water Management Policy. Kogarah
Council. August 2006’

The design
parameters and the general concept of the proposed on-site stormwater
management system are to be the same as documented in the approved Concept
Stormwater Plan for the proposed development. Any conceptual variations to the
stormwater design will require written approval from Council and will require
to be justified and supported by appropriate details, calculations and
information to allow for proper assessment.

The
Detailed Stormwater Plan is to address the following issue(s):

a) The
Council stormwater pipe is to be located and levelled by careful excavation at
the proposed connection point.

b) A
full scaled plan and long section of the proposed stormwater connection from
the site boundary to the Council street drainage to be included, indicating the
existing levels, design levels of the pipes, pit locations as well as the
location and level of all service lines that are in the vicinity of the works.
The long section will need to show that the pipes can be installed with adequate
clearances from all existing underground service lines. Accurate locations and
levels of all underground services under and in the vicinity of the Council
footway will need to be included on the design to show that the stormwater
connection can be constructed. It will be required that all services are
located by either a qualified service locating professional or by careful
excavation. A Dial Before you Dig request must be performed. Assumed levels
will not be sufficient.

c) The
design is to be amended to allow for the connection at the new grated kerb
inlet pit to be made so that the invert of the connecting pipe is at or above
the top third of the Council stormwater pipe.

d) The
proposed new grated kerb inlet pit adjacent is to be detailed to have a minimum
1.8 metre lintel.

e) A
suitably qualified engineer is to certify that appropriate design measures have
been taken to ensure that the basement levels have been protected from flooding
in the case of the On-site Detention system malfunctioning or reaching
capacity.

(14) Landscape Plan

All
proposed street trees are to be planted in accordance with Councils Street
Tree Management Strategy & Masterplan

(15) Compliance with
submitted Arborist Report

The recommendations outlined in the Arborist’s Report titled Arboricultural
Impact Appraisal and Method Statement prepared by Naturally trees
dated 20 April 2017 must be implemented throughout the relevant stages
of construction. Details of tree protection measures to be implemented
must be detailed and lodged with the Construction Certificate application for
approval and shall be in accordance with Section 4 - Australian Standard AS
4970-2009: Protection of trees on development sites.

The tree/s to be protected
are listed in the table below.

Tree Species

Location of Tree / Tree No.

Tree Protection Zone (metres)

Eucalyptus robusta

1 Buchanan Street/ Tree 11

4.8 metres

(a) All
trees to be retained shall be protected and maintained during demolition,
excavation and construction of the site.

(b) The
tree protection measures must be in undertaken in accordance AS4970 -2009
Protection of trees on development sites.

(c) Details
of the tree protection measures to be implemented must be provided with the
application for a Construction Certificate by a suitably qualified Arborist
(AQF Level 5 or above in Arboriculture).

(d) The
Arborist must be present on-site during the stages of construction when works
are being undertaken that could impact on the tree canopy or root zone within
the tree protection zone to implement the tree protection measures as required.

(e) Unless
otherwise specified in AS 4970-2009, a protective fence consisting of 1.8
metres high, fully supported chainmesh fence shall be erected around the base
of the tree. The distance of the fence from the base of each tree is to be in
accordance with the TPZ listed in the table above. A layer of organic mulch 100
millimetres thick shall be placed over the protected area and no soil or fill
should be placed within the protection area.

(f) No
services shall be installed within the TPZ of the tree unless approved by
Council. This fence shall be kept in place during demolition, construction and
also have a sign displaying ‘Tree Protection Zone’ attached to the
fence and must also include the name and contact details of the Project
Arborist.

Excavation
works near tree to be retained.

(g) Excavations
around the trees to be retained on site or the adjoining properties shall be
supervised by the Project Arborist to ensure that the root system will not
adversely be affected.

(h) Where
the Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) of trees on site or adjoining sites become
compromised by any excavation works, the Project arborist shall be consulted to
establish the position of any major roots and determine the necessary measures
to protect these roots. The recommendations of the Arborist shall be submitted
to Council prior to any further demolition or construction works taking place.

(i) Tree
Protection Zone around the trees to be retained are not to have soil level
changes or services installed in this area. Any structures proposed to be built
in this area of the trees are to utilise pier and beam or cantilevered slab
construction.

Details satisfying
this condition shall be shown on the Construction Certificate plans.

(16) Tree Removal

Permission is
granted for the removal of the following trees in the Arboricultural
Impact Appraisal and Method Statement prepared by Naturally treeson 20 April 2017 for 15-21 Hampton Court Road The trees to be removed are
numbered:

1,
2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17.

(17) General Tree Removal
Requirements

(a) All tree removal shall be carried
out by a certified Tree Surgeon/Arborist to ensure that removal is undertaken
in a safe manner and complies with the AS 4373-2007 - Pruning of Amenity Trees
and Tree Works Industry Code of Practice (Work Cover NSW 1.8.98).

(b) No trees are to be removed on the
site or neighbouring properties without the prior written approval of Council.

(c) Council shall be appointed
to remove all tree/s on public land. All costs associated with the removal of
the tree/s and the planting of replacement trees shall be met by the applicant.
Fees and charges outlined in the table below are subject to change and are set
out in the current version of Council's ‘Schedule of Fees and
Charges’, applicable at the time of payment.

(18) Overhead Wires

The
overhead wires are to be relocated underground. Consultation is to be
held with the relevant authority and details provided to the PCA.

SECTION C – Prior to Commencement of Construction
Conditions

The conditions
that follow in this Section C of the Notice of Determination are specific to
the proposed development and must be complied with prior to the commencement of
construction on the site.

(19) Geotechnical Report

Excavation of the
site is to extend only to that area required for building works depicted upon
the approved plans. All excess excavated material shall be removed from the
site. In this regard, all excavated waste materials shall be disposed of
at an approved Waste Depot.

No rock breaking
or other machinery for the excavation, drilling, cutting or removal of rock
shall be used on the site prior to the acceptance by the principal certifying
authority of the following documentation:

(i) A
report by a geotechnical engineer detailing the measures recommended in
undertaking the works so as to prevent damage to any adjoining or nearby
buildings.

(ii) The
type and size of machinery proposed.

(iii) The
routes of all trucks to convey material to and from the site.

(20) On-Site Detention

A 40.8m3
On-Site Detention system with a Maximum Site Discharge of 34.6 Litres per
Second is to be provided in accordance with the Stormwater Concept Plan and
associated Design Assessment Report. The overflow is to be directed to the site
drainage system.

(21) Certification by Mechanical
Engineer

To ensure that
adequate provision is made for ventilation of the building, mechanical and /or
natural ventilation shall be provided. These systems shall be designed in
accordance with the provisions of:-

a) The
Building Code of Australia;

b) Australian
Standard AS 1668 Part 1 - 1998;

c) Australian
Standard AS 1668 Part 2 - 2002;

d) The
Public Health Act 2010;

e) The
Public Health Regulation 2012;

f) Australian
Standard 3666.1 - 2002;

g) Australian
Standard 3666.2 - 2002;

h) Australian
Standard 3666.3 - 2000.

Details of all
mechanical and /or natural ventilation systems, along with specific
certification, provided by an appropriately qualified person, verifying
compliance with the abovementioned requirements.

(22) Structural
Engineer’s Details

Engineer's details
prepared by a practising Structural Engineer being used to construct all
reinforced concrete work, structural beams, columns & other structural
members. The details are to be submitted to the Principal Certifying
Authority for approval prior to construction of the specified works.

A copy shall be
forwarded to Council where Council is not the PCA.

(23) Protection of Site
– Hoarding

A hoarding or
fence must be erected between the work site and the public place if:

· the work involved
in the erection or demolition of a building is likely to cause obstruction or
inconvenience to pedestrian or vehicular traffic in a public place; or

· if it involves the
enclosure of a public place.

If necessary an
awning is to be erected which is sufficient to prevent any substance from or in
connection with the work from falling into a public place.

Any such hoarding,
fence or awning is to be removed when the work has been completed.

If the work site
is likely to be hazardous to persons in a public place, it must be kept lit
between sunset and sunrise.

(24) Ground Anchors

Should the
proposed development require the installation of ground anchors to a road
reserve the following must be complied with:

· The appropriate
Roads Act 1993 approvals shall be obtained.

· The anchoring is
to be de-stressed once no longer required.

· The work is to be
clear of all services contained within the public roadway and the required dial
before you dig investigations are to be undertaken in relation to any services
that may be in the proposed anchor locations.

· Public liability
insurances being held by the builder/ developer with a copy being submitted to
Council.

· A
works-as-executed plan showing the exact location of all anchoring points being
submitted to Council upon their installation.

It is to be noted that if anchoring into adjacent private properties
is required any such approval would need to be obtained from the owners of this
property.

(25) Driveway

In
respect to vehicular access to the proposed development the gutter crossing and
driveway are to be reconstructed between the kerb and street alignment to
Council’s specifications.

In
this regard a separate driveway application is to be lodged with Council for
works outside the property boundary. Furthermore the design boundary
level is to be received from Council prior to construction of the internal
driveway.

(26) Council Infrastructure
Inspection

Prior
to the commencement of any works an authorised representative of the applicant
is to organise and attend a meeting on site with Council’s Infrastructure
Compliance Co-ordinator to discuss protection of Council’s
infrastructure. To organise this meeting contact Council’s Customer
Service Centre on 9330 6400.

(27) Public Liability Insurance

All nominated
contractors / applicants carrying out driveway and/or restoration works on
Council property must carry public liability insurance with a minimum cover of
twenty million dollars ($20,000,000.00). In this regard, prior to commencement
of works, the principal contractor is to lodge an “Application for the
Construction of Work by Private Contractor” to Council, which includes
submitting evidence of their current insurance. The principal contractor must
ensure that sub-contractors are also adequately insured.

(28) Soil Erosion Controls

Prior to
commencement of any site works, erosion and sediment controls are to be
installed in accordance with Environmental Site Management Policy and any
approved Soil & Water Management Plan and shall incorporate:

· Measures to
prevent sediment and other debris escaping from the cleared or disturbed areas
into drainage systems or waterways;

The conditions
that follow in this Section D of the Notice of Determination are imposed to
ensure the development is constructed and operates having regard to relevant
legislation and does not unreasonably impact on the amenity of the locality or
environment during the construction phase or the operation of the use.

(29) Inspections -Multi Unit

The following
lists of inspections are the MANDATORY CRITICAL STAGE
INSPECTIONS that MUST be carried out by the Principal Certifying
Authority (PCA).

(a) at
the commencement of building works

(b) prior to covering
waterproofing in any wet areas, for a minimum of 10% of rooms with wet areas
within a building, and

(c) prior
to covering any stormwater drainage connections, and

(d) after the building work has
been completed and prior to any occupation certificate being issued in relation
to the building.

Certificates
from your engineer or subcontractor are NOT acceptable in the first
instance for the above inspections. Failure to have your PCA carry out
these inspections could result in a delay or refusal to issue an Occupation
Certificate.

In
addition to the above, it is recommended that the following inspections be
carried out for the subject development;

· Erosion Control

· Earthworks/Excavation

· Building setout

· Concrete reinforcement

· Timber and/or steel framework

· Mechanical/Hydraulic work

· Driveways

· Landscaping

· External Finishes

(30) Storage of materials on
Public Road

All building
materials or waste containers must be stored within the confines of the
site. The storage of such building materials, waste containers or
equipment associated with the project upon the public roadway, including the
pedestrian footway or unpaved verge, is prohibited.

(31) Use of Crane on
Public Road

Prior approval
must be obtained from Council a minimum of 24 hours before the use on any site
of a crane, hoist or similar machinery that will be used to transfer materials
across Council’s footpath. This includes cranes that are situated
on roadways, footpaths and road reserves.

Any application
for approval must be accompanied by the following information:-

· Site sketch
indicating the proposed location of the crane, pedestrian controls and traffic
controls;

· A copy of current
public liability insurance with minimum cover of twenty million dollars
($20,000,000) indemnifying Council in the event of an incident;

· A copy of an RMS
accredited traffic control plan;

· Proof that the
local area command of the NSW Police have been advised of the proposal.

The use of a
crane, hoist or similar machinery on any site without prior approval is
prohibited.

(32) Building Height -
Surveyors Certificate

The proposed
building is not to be erected at a height greater than that indicated on the
approved plan. A certificate from a Registered Surveyor verifying the
correct Reduced Level of the ground floor slab and boundary clearances shall be
submitted prior to inspection of the steel reinforcement.

(33) Excavation of Site

Excavation of the
site is to extend only to that area required for building works depicted upon
the approved plans. All excess excavated material shall be removed from
the site. In this regard, all excavated waste materials shall be disposed
of at an approved Waste Depot (details are available from Council).

All excavations
and backfilling associated with the erection or demolition of a building must
be executed safely and in accordance with appropriate professional standards.

All excavations
associated with the erection or demolition of a building must be properly
guarded and protected to prevent them from being dangerous to life or property.

If the soil
conditions require it, retaining walls associated with the erection or demolition
of a building or other approved methods of preventing movement of the soil
shall be provided and adequate provision shall be made for drainage.

(34) Stormwater to Kerb

Any
stormwater connections to the kerb and gutter are to be in accordance with Council's
'Specification for Construction by Private Contractors'.

(35) Redundant Driveway

All existing
vehicular crossings adjacent to the subject premises that have become redundant
shall be removed and the footway and kerb and gutter reinstated at the developer/applicants
expense.

(36) Work within Road
Reserve

A Development
Consent or any related Construction Certificate does not allow for the erection
of a structure or to carry out work in, on or over a public road. Should
a structure or work be required a separate approval under S138 of the Road Act
1993 must be granted by Council prior to the commencement of any works within
the road reserve. Applications may be made at Council’s Customer Service
Centre.

(37) Damage within Road
Reserve & Council Assets

The owner shall
bear the cost of restoring any footpath, roadway and any other Council assets
damaged due to works at, near or associated with the site. This may
include works by Public Utility Authorities in the course of providing services
to the site.

(38) Public Utility &
Telecommunication Assets

The owner shall
bear the cost of any relocation or modification required to any Public Utility
Authority assets including telecommunication lines & cables and restoring
any footpath, roadway and any other Council assets damaged due to works at,
near or associated with the site.

(39) Stormwater Drainage

All roof water and
surface water from paved or concreted areas being disposed of to the street
gutter by means of a sealed pipeline constructed in accordance with AS/NZS
3500.3.2. The line must pass through a silt arrestor pit, a standard
design is available within Council’s Water Management Policy.

(40) Garbage Room

The proposed
garbage room being provided with the following:-

a) A
smooth concrete floor graded and drained to a floor waste connected to the
sewer of the Water Board.

b) The
walls being cement rendered with the intersection of the walls and floor being
coved to a radius of not less than 25mm.

c) The
door being close fitting to prevent the access of rats and mice.

d) A
cold water hose cock being provided for the cleaning of containers and the room
itself.

e) Ventilation
being provided by means of direct connection to the outside air to the
satisfaction of Council.

f) A
sign, minimum size 600mm x 600mm, directing residents not to place recyclables
in garbage carts and encouraging residents to recycle. Details of an
acceptable wording for the sign are available from Council.

(41) Hours of Construction

Construction may
only be carried out between 7.00am and 5.00pm on Monday to Saturday and no
construction is to be carried out at any time on a Sunday or a public holiday.

(42) Restriction on Hours of
Excavation (other than single residential dwelling)

b) A
noise management plan for the above works, prepared by a suitably qualified
acoustical practitioner in accordance with the Interim Noise Construction
Guidelines prepared by the Department of Environment & Climate Change NSW,
must be submitted to Council prior to commencement of any excavation works.

(43) Provision of Amenities

Toilet facilities
are to be provided, at or in the vicinity of the work site on which work
involved in the erection or demolition of a building is being carried out, at
the rate of one toilet for every 20 persons or part of 20 persons employed at
the site or as specified by Workcover requirements .

· each toilet
provided must be a standard flushing toilet and must be connected:

· to a public sewer;
or

· if connection to a
public sewer is not practicable, to an accredited sewage management facility
approved by the Council; or

· if connection to a
public sewer or an accredited sewage management facility is not practicable, to
some other sewage management facility approved by the Council.

The provision of
toilet facilities must be completed before any other work is commenced.

An oil/silt separator sized to the catchment area must be specified on
the Stormwater Detailed Plans and located downstream of the proposed basement
car park and prior to discharge to councils stormwater system.

(46) Car Wash

To ensure that waste water is treated in an acceptable manner the car
wash bay shall be designed and constructed to ensure that waste water is
discharged to the sewer in accordance with the requirements of Sydney Water.
Evidence of a permit issued by Sydney Water shall be submitted.

(47) Basix Certificate
Details – DA Only

Construction of
building works given Development Consent must be carried out in accordance with
a valid and current BASIX certificate and all required commitments must be
satisfied.

(48) Air
Conditioning / Offensive Noise

Air conditioning
plant and equipment shall be installed and operated so as to not create an
offensive noise as defined under the Protection of the Environment Operations
Act 1997 and Protection of the Environment Operations (Noise Control)
Regulation 2008.

(49) Building Finishes

The building
finishes are to be constructed in accordance with the colour board and
perspective submitted with the Development .

(50) Residential Car Parking
Spaces

A minimum of one
(1) unrestricted car parking space shall be allocated to each residential unit.
Where a three (3) or more bedroom residential unit is provided within the
development it is to be allocated two parking spaces in the first instance.

(51) Commercial/Retail
Parking Spaces

The required
commercial/retail car parking spaces shall be allocated evenly amongst the
commercial/retail units based on the gross floor area of each unit.

(52) Visitor Parking

A directional sign
shall be provided at the front of the site indicating the availability of
visitor and/or customer parking on site. Those visitor and/or customer
spaces shall be marked or signposted.

(53) Works Zone

The
installation of a "Works Zone" for the site will require the approval
from the Traffic Advisory Committee. As a result, the applicant shall provide a
formal request to Council's Traffic Section with the duration and exact
location of the required "Works Zone" at least 6 weeks prior to its
required installation date. All costs associated with the installation of
a “Works Zone” will be at the applicants expense.

(54) Road Closure
Application

A Road Closure
Application form and associated documents shall be submitted to Council for
approval at least 5 business days prior to any proposed lane usage for concrete
pours, cranes or other activities involved in the demolition, excavation and
construction on the site.

(55) Carpark Design

The carpark
shall be designed in accordance with the requirements of “AS/NZS
2890.1:2004 - Off Street Car Parking”.

(56) Roof and Surface Water

All roof water and surface water from paved or concreted areas are to be
disposed of in accordance with the Stormwater Plan by means of a sealed
pipeline constructed in accordance with AS/NZS 3500.3:2015.

(57) Council’s
Stormwater System

The works on Council’s stormwater system are to be carried out by a
qualified plumber, drainer or civil construction company with a minimum limit
of twenty million dollar public and product liability insurance. In this
regard, qualification details of the person / company carrying out these works
along with a certificate of currency for the product and public liability
insurance are to be submitted to Council’s Stormwater section prior to
the works commencing. Prior to the works commencing the contractor who will be
carrying out the works is required to organise and attend an onsite meeting
with a representative of Council’s Stormwater section.

All
Inspections of the extension of Council's Street Drainage system will be
required to be undertaken by Council’s inspector. Inspections will be
required at the following points in construction:

a. Completion
of laying of new Reinforced Concrete pipes and any associated concrete form
work.

b. Completion
of backfilling of trenches.

c. Prior
to casting or installation of pits.

Or
as advised by Council’s inspector.

The
applicant is to organise all inspections with Council's and give a minimum of
24 hours’ notice for each.

(58) Tree Removal

This consent does
not approve the removal or pruning (branches or roots) of any trees on the
subject property, Council’s public footway, public reserves or on
neighbouring properties.

SECTION E – Prior to Occupation or Subdivision Certificate
Conditions

The conditions
that follow in this Section E of the Notice of Determination relate to
conditions that ensure that the development is completed in accordance with the
requirements of the Development Consent prior to the issue of either an
Occupation Certificate or a Subdivision Certificate.

(59) Adaptable Housing
Certification

Certification
shall be provided by a person suitably accredited by the Association of
Consultants in Access Australia, verifying that the development has been
constructed in accordance with the requirements of AS4299 - Adaptable
Housing and AS1428 - Design for Access and Mobility and in
accordance with the report and checklist submitted with the Construction
Certificate.

(60) SEPP No 65
Certification

A design verification statement from a qualified designer shall be submitted
verifying that the development achieves the design quality of the development
as shown in the plans and specifications in respect of which the construction
certificate was issued, having regard to the design quality principals of State
Environmental Planning Policy No. 65.

(61) Completion of
Landscaping

Certification shall be provided from a suitably qualified and experienced
Landscape Designer or Landscape Architect. This Certification shall
verify that the landscape works have been completed in accordance with the
approved detailed landscape plan and relevant conditions of this consent.

Note: A
Landscape Designer is a person eligible for membership of the Australian
Institute of Landscape Designers and Managers and a Landscape Architect is a person
eligible for membership of the Australian Institute of Landscape Architects as
a Registered Landscape Architect.

(62) Consolidation of Lots

The lots covered
by this development consent shall be consolidated into one lot and proof of
registration of the consolidation shall be submitted to Council.

(63) Section 73 Compliance
Certificate

A Section 73
Compliance Certificate under the Sydney Water Act, 1994 must be obtained from
Sydney Water Corporation.

Application must
be made through an authorised Water Servicing Coordinator. Please refer
to the Building Developing and Plumbing section of the web site www.sydneywater.com.au
then refer to “Water Servicing Coordinator” under “Developing
Your Land” or telephone 13 20 92 for assistance.

Following
application a “Notice of Requirements” will advise of water and
sewer infrastructure to be built and charges to be paid. Please make
early contact with the Coordinator, since building of water / sewer infrastructure
can be time consuming and may impact on other services and building, driveway
or landscape design.

The Section 73
Certificate must be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority.

(64) Stormwater Compliance
Certificate

A Stormwater
Compliance Certificate is to be obtained for the constructed on-site stormwater
management systems in conjunction with the works-as-executed drawings and the
final inspection. This Certificate is to be signed by an accredited hydraulic
engineer (preferably be the original design consultant) and submitted to the
Principal Certifying Authority. Copy of the standard Stormwater Compliance
Certificate is shown in Council’s Water Management Policy.

If the proposed
works involve Council owned stormwater infrastructure (or infrastructure to be
owned by Council), then the applicant should organise inspection with Council
and pay Council the appropriate inspection fee. Inspection is to be carried out
at the following specified stages:

· Prior to
backfilling of pipelines trenches.

· Prior to
backfilling of drainage connection to pipeline or channels.

A Restriction on
Use of the land and Positive Covenant shall be created and registered on the
title of the property, which places the responsibility for the maintenance of
the on-site stormwater management system on the owner of the land. The terms of
the instrument are to be generally in accordance with the Council’s
standard terms and conditions for Restriction on Use of the land and Positive
Covenant shown in Council’s Water Management Policy.

(66) Maintenance Schedule

A Maintenance
Schedule for the proposed on-site stormwater management measures is to be
prepared and submitted. The Maintenance Schedule shall outline the required
maintenance works, how and when these will be done and who will be carrying out
these maintenance works.

(67) Fire Safety Schedule

Certain items of
equipment or forms of construction shall be nominated as "fire safety
measures" within the building.

Upon completion of
works, and before occupation of the building, each of the fire safety measures
is required to be certified by an appropriately competent person (chosen by the
owner of the building). The certificate is to state that the measure was
inspected and found to be designed, installed and capable of operating to a
standard not less than that required by the relevant regulations.

Further, it is the
responsibility of the owner of the building that each fire safety measure is
again inspected and certified as to its condition every twelve (12) months
following the submission to Council of the original certification.

(68) BASIX Completion
Receipt

In accordance with
clause 154C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, prior
to issuing a final occupation certificate the certifying authority must apply
to the Director-General for a BASIX completion receipt.

SECTION F
– Prescribed Conditions

The following are prescribed conditions of development consent pursuant
to s.80A(11) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and cl.98 of
the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.

(69) Compliance with the
Building Code of Australia

The development must be carried out in accordance with the provisions of
the Building Code of Australia.

(70) Insurance Requirements
under Home Building Act 1989

The builder or person who does the residential building work must comply
with the applicable requirements of Part 6 of the Home Building Act,
1989. This means that a contract of insurance must be in force in
accordance with Part 6 of that Act before any building work authorised to be
carried out by the consent commences.

It is the
responsibility of the builder or person who is to do the work to satisfy
Council that they have complied with the applicable requirements of Part 6 of
the Home Building Act, 1989.

If Council is the
Principal Certifying Authority it will not carry out any inspections until a
copy of the insurance certificate is received.

(71) Erection of Signs

A sign must be
erected in a prominent position on any site on which building work, subdivision
work or demolition work is being carried out:

(a) showing
the name, address and telephone number of the principal certifying authority
for the work, and

(b) showing
the name of the principal contractor (if any) for any building work and a
telephone number on which that person may be contacted outside working hours,
and

(c) stating
that unauthorised entry to the work site is prohibited.

The sign is to be
maintained while the building work, subdivision work or demolition work is
being carried out, but must be removed when the work has been completed.

(72) Notification of Home
Building Act 1989 Requirements

Residential
building work within the meaning of the Home Building Act 1989
must not be carried out unless the principal certifying authority for the
development to which the work relates (not being the council) has given the
council written notice of the following information:

(a) in
the case of work for which a principal contractor is required to be appointed:

(i) the
name and licence number of the principal contractor, and

(ii) the
name of the insurer by which the work is insured under Part 6 of that Act,

(b) in
the case of work to be done by an owner-builder:

(i) the
name of the owner-builder, and

(ii) if
the owner-builder is required to hold an owner-builder permit under that Act,
the number of the owner-builder permit.

If arrangements
for doing the residential building work are changed while the work is in
progress so that the information notified above becomes out of date, further
work must not be carried out unless the principal certifying authority for the
development to which the work relates (not being the council) has given the
council written notice of the updated information.

(73) Shoring and Adequacy of
Adjoining Property

If the development
involves an excavation that extends below the level of the base of the footings
of a building on adjoining land, the person having the benefit of the
development consent must, at the person’s own expense:

(a) protect
and support the adjoining premises from possible damage from the excavation,
and

(b) where
necessary, underpin the adjoining premises to prevent any such damage.

The above
condition does not apply if the person having the benefit of the development
consent owns the adjoining land or the owner of the adjoining land has given
consent in writing to that condition not applying.

(74) Council Notification of
Construction

The erection of a
building which is the subject of a Development Consent must not be commenced
until:

a) Detailed
plans and specifications of the building have been endorsed with a construction
certificate by Council or an accredited certifier.

b) the
person having the benefit of the development consent has:

· appointed a
Principal Certifying Authority (PCA),and

· notified Council
(if Council is not the PCA) in writing of the appointment, and

· given at least 2
days’ notice to Council of their intention to commence the erection of
the building. The notice may be in writing or by phone.

SECTION G
– Demolition Conditions

The following
conditions are imposed to ensure the demolition associated with the proposed
development is carried out having regard to relevant legislation and does not
unreasonably impact on the amenity of the locality or environment.

(75) Demolition
Conditions-Asbestos

(a) Demolition
of buildings where asbestos is determined to be present should only occur 7am
– 5pm Monday to Saturdays, and must not occur on Sundays or Public
Holidays, to ensure that the persons carrying out the work have access to
WorkCover professionals if required.

(b) All
asbestos removal shall be undertaken in accordance with the requirements of
WorkCover’s ‘How to Safely Remove Asbestos’ Code of Practice
and Council’s Asbestos Policy.

(c) Written
notice must be provided to Georges River Council five (5) working days
(excluding public holidays) prior to commencement of any works.

Written
notice is to include the following details:

· Date the
demolition will commence

· Name, address,
contact details (including after hours) and licence number of the demolisher
and asbestos removalist (if different)

Work
must not commence prior to the nominated demolition date.

Note: it is
the responsibility of the persons undertaking demolition work to obtain the
relevant WorkCover licences and permits.

(d) The
owner is to notify all owners and occupiers of premises on either side,
opposite and at the rear of the development site five (5) working days prior to
demolition. Such notification is to be clearly written on A4 size paper
stating the date the demolition will commence and is to be placed in the
letterbox of every premises (including every residential flat or unit, if any).
The demolition must not commence prior to the date and time stated in the
notification.

(e) A
demolition or asbestos removal contractor licensed under the Work Health and
Safety Regulations 2011 must undertake removal of more than 10m2
of bonded asbestos (or otherwise specified by WorkCover or relevant legislation).

Removal of friable
asbestos material must only be undertaken by a contractor that holds a current
AS1 Friable Asbestos Removal Licence.

(f) Demolition
sites that involve the removal of asbestos must display a standard commercially
manufactured sign containing the words ‘DANGER ASBESTOS REMOVAL IN
PROGRESS’ measuring not less than 400mm x 300mm is to be erected in a
prominent visible position on the site to the satisfaction of Council’s
officers. The sign is to be erected prior to demolition work commencing and is
to remain in place until such time as all asbestos has been removed from the
site to an approved waste facility.

(g) All
asbestos waste must be stored, transported and disposed of in compliance with
the Protection of the Environment Operations (Waste) Regulation 2005. All
receipts detailing method and location of disposal must be submitted to Council
as evidence of correct disposal.

(h) A
Clearance Certificate or Statement, prepared by a suitably qualified
occupational hygienist must be provided to Council upon completion of
demolition and asbestos related works, which confirms that the relevant
legislative requirements in relation to safe removal and disposal have been
satisfied.

(i) A
Work Cover Licensed Demolisher is to be engaged to carry out any demolition
works using mechanical equipment where the structure is over 4 metres in height
or to carry out any manual demolition works on a structure over 10 metres in
height.

(j) The
provision of temporary fences and footpath crossing pads prior to commencement
of demolition operations. Further, no waste materials or bins are to be
placed on Council's roadways or footpaths.

(k) No
waste materials are to be burnt on site.

(l) No
trees as defined by Council's Tree Preservation Order being removed or damaged
on the site without the prior written approval of Council.

(m) Compliance
with the provisions of Australian Standard AS 2601-1991:"The Demolition of
Structures", which requires notification of demolition to be submitted at
least seven (7) days prior to demolition to the NSW Workcover Authority.

(n) Effective
erosion and sediment control measures are to be undertaken during the course of
demolition and building works in accordance with Council’s
‘Environmental Site Management Policy’. Failure to implement
appropriate measures may result in a $750 Penalty Infringement Notice
(individual) and/or $1,500 (corporation) being issued and/or the incurring of a
maximum penalty of $250,000 (corporation) or $120,000 (individual) through the
Land and Environment Court.

(o) Appropriate
measures are to be implemented on site to control dust and other air borne
matter and demolition material is to be stored and stacked in a manner so as to
minimise the risk of damage or nuisance to neighbouring properties.

(p) Council
being notified upon completion of the demolition works so that an inspection
can be made of the roadway and footpath.

(q) All
non-recyclable demolition material being disposed of at an approved waste
disposal depot. Details as to the method and location of disposal of demolition
materials (weight dockets, receipts, etc.) should be kept as evidence of
approved method of disposal.

(r) A
sign must be erected in a prominent position on any site on which building
work, subdivision work or demolition work is being carried out:

(a) showing
the name, address and telephone number of the principal certifying authority
for the work, and

(b) showing
the name of the principal contractor (if any) for any building work and a telephone
number on which that person may be contacted outside working hours, and

(c) stating
that unauthorised entry to the work site is prohibited.

The sign is to be
maintained while the building work, subdivision work or demolition work is
being carried out, but must be removed when the work has been completed

END CONDITIONS

NOTES/ADVICES

1. Review of Determination

Section
82A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act confers on an applicant
who is dissatisfied with the determination of the application the right to
lodge an application with Council for a review of such determination. Any
such review must however be completed within 6 months from its
determination. Should a review be contemplated sufficient time should be
allowed for Council to undertake public notification and other processes
involved in the review of the determination.

Note: Review provisions do not apply to
Complying Development, Designated Development, State Significant Development,
Integrated Development or any application determined by the Sydney South
Planning Panel or the Land & Environment Court.

2. Appeal Rights

Division
8 (Appeals and Related matters) Part 4 of the Environmental Planning and
Assessment Act 1979 confers on an applicant who is dissatisfied with the
determination of the application a right of appeal to the Land and Environment
Court of New South Wales.

3. Lapsing of Consent

This
consent will lapse unless the development is physically commenced within 5
years from the Date of Operation of this consent, in accordance with Section 95
of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as amended.

4. Worksite Safety

It is usually the owner/applicant’s responsibility to ensure that
the development site is a safe working environment. This may be by the
engagement of an appropriately competent principal contractor. There are
various legislative and WorkCover requirements with respect to maintaining a
safe work-site. Details of these requirements and legislation, as well
as, guidance and advisory material, can be found on the WorkCover Website www.workcover.nsw.gov.au.

5. WorksiteSafetyScaffolding

Council is
committed to worksite safety and requiring that all scaffolding is installed by
competent and qualified professionals with the relative appropriate
standards. The applicable Australian Standards for the scaffolding is
AS/NZS1576 in respect of the design of the scaffolding and AS/NZS4576 with
respect to the erection of the scaffolding. Also, you should ensure that
those erecting scaffolding are appropriately qualified and have the appropriate
qualifications to erect scaffolding. For further information regarding
this please see www.workcover.nsw.gov.au.

6. Kid Safe NSW

Kidsafe NSW has
produced Safer Homes for Children Design and Construction Guidelines for
builders, renovators and home owners. The guidelines identify common
hazards for children and recommended practical design applications to improve
child safety for all areas of the home. Free copies of the Guidelines are
available from Council’s Customer Service Centre, or contact Kidsafe on
(02) 9845 0890 or their website http://www.kidsafensw.org/homesafety/index.htm
for more information.

7. Dial Before You Dig

Underground pipes
and cables may exist in the area. In your own interest and for safety,
telephone 1100 before excavation or erection of structures. Information
on the location of underground pipes and cables can also be obtained by fax on
1300 652 077 or through the following website www.dialbeforeyoudig.com.au.

8. Disability Discrimination Act

This authorisation
does not imply that the proposal complies with Disability Discrimination Act
1992. The Proponent is responsible to ensure compliance with this and
other anti-discrimination legislation. The Disability Discrimination
Act 1992 covers disabilities not catered for in the minimum standards
called up in the Building Code of Australia which references AS 1428.1 –
Design for Access and Mobility. AS1428 Parts 2, 3 & 4 provides the
most comprehensive technical guidance under The Disability Discrimination
Act 1992.

9. Demolition Waste

Sorting your
construction and demolition waste will save you money. For pricing and
disposal options for sorted loads of tiles, bricks, timber concrete or asphalt
call Waste Service NSW on 1300 651 116.

10. Property Address

Property addresses shall be allocated by Council in accordance with the
Addressing Standard AS/NZS 4819:2011.

11. Flood
Affected

The property; 21 Hampton Court Road, Carlton (Lot 103 of DP1753) is
identified as flood affected in the Beverley Park Overland Flow Risk Management
Study and Plan 2007 and as such development controls for flood affected
properties will apply. The Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) level for property has
been identified at28.25m (AHD). The property is not identified as being
affected by the 1% AEP (1 in 100 year ARI) flood event. As such there are no
specific flood controls for this development proposal.

Georges
River Council – Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel Tuesday, 5
December 2017

Page 52

REPORT TO GEORGES RIVER COUNCIL

IHAP
MEETING OF Tuesday, 05 December 2017

IHAP Report No

3.2

Application No

DA2017/0114

Site Address & Ward Locality

18 Marine Drive Oatley

Peakhurst Ward

Proposal

Alterations and additions to dwelling - additional levels to
dwelling to form a multi-level dwelling house, new terrace and pavillion to
rear and new garage

Report Author/s

Development
Assessment Officer

Owners

Martin and Elyse Allen

Applicant

Those Architects

Zoning

Zone R2
– Low Density Residential

Date Of Lodgement

3/05/2017

Submissions

Eight (8)
submissions, then two (2) for renotification from same submitters

Cost of Works

$884,519.00

Reason for Referral to IHAP

Submissions
received and variations to HLEP (building height of 12.06m or 34% variation)
and DCP No 1 (external wall height of 11.76m or 63% variation) and solar
access (east west orientation)

Recommendation

THAT
the application be approved in accordance with the conditions included in
the report

Site Plan

Executive
Summary

1. The proposal varies Hurstville Local Environmental Plan
2012 (building height of 12.06m or 34%
variation) and Development Control Plan No 1
requirements relating to the maximum ridge and external wall heights for a
single dwelling house (external wall height of
11.76m or 63% variation). These variations
result from the steep fall of the site.

Proposal

2. The proposal seeks approval for alterations and additions
to the existing dwelling including new two (2) levels to the existing dwelling
to form a multi-level dwelling with a lift, new terrace and pavilion to the
rear and a new garage to the front of the subject site. An open style front
fence with a height up to 1.8m above the existing ground level is also
proposed. The existing projecting balconies to the rear of the dwelling are to
be removed with this application.

Site and
Locality

3. The site is located at 18 Marine Drive Oatley (Lot 226 DP
13827) on the western side of the road and has a total site area of 970.7sqm.
The site is an irregular shaped site with a narrow street frontage of 10.67m to
Marine Drive, rear boundary of 18.29m and an average depth of 68m. The site
falls steeply from the street to Georges River at the rear by approximately
41m. There is a fall of approximately 17m within the building footprint of the
proposed dwelling on the site, including the void up to a height of 6.11m
directly underneath the proposed cantilevered garage to the front of the
dwelling.

Existing on the site is a three (3) storey single dwelling
house with a detached double garage near the front boundary. There is an
existing on-site tree near the south western corner of the existing dwelling
house, which is not affected by the proposal.

Adjoining the site on all sides are multi-levelled dwelling
houses with Georges River to the west. The subject site is located within the
Foreshore Scenic Protection Area and is affected by the Foreshore Building
line. The area is generally residential in character within the Foreshore
Scenic Protection Area.

Zoning
and Compliance with LEP standards

4. The site is zoned R2 Low Density Residential under HLEP
2012 and the proposal is a permissible form of development with Council’s
consent. The proposed development satisfies all relevant clauses and objectives
contained within the LEP, except, the proposal does not satisfy the following
development standards and a Clause 4.6 variation has been submitted for;

· Clause 4.3 of HLEP 2012 Height of buildings

Fig 1: HLEP Land Zoning map (LZN_006)

Fig 2: HLEP Height of Buildings map (HOB_006)

Development Control Plan

5. The proposed development is considered to be consistent
with the objectives of the applicable DCPand is considered to be site responsive. However, the
proposal does not comply with Councils controls for;

6. Eight (8) submissions were received during the first round
of neighbour notification and two (2) submissions were received during the
final round of neighbour notification in relation to the proposed development.

Level of Determination

7. The application is referred to the IHAP for determination
in view of the number of submissions received and the extent of LEP and DCP
variations.

Conclusion

8. Having regard to the Heads of Consideration under Section
79C(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and following a
detailed assessment of the proposal Development Application DA2017/0114 should
be approved subject to suitable conditions.

Report
in Full

Proposal

9. The proposal seeks approval for alterations and additions
to the existing dwelling including new two (2) levels to form a multi-levelled
dwelling with a lift, new terrace and pavilion to the rear and a new garage to
the front of the subject site. An open style front fence with a height up to
1.8m above the existing ground level is also proposed. The existing projecting
balconies to the rear of the dwelling are to be removed with this application.

The Site
and Locality

10. The site is located at 18 Marine Drive Oatley (Lot 226 DP
13827) on the western side of the road and has a total site area of 970.7sqm.
The site is an irregular shaped site with a narrow street frontage of 10.67m to
Marine Drive, rear boundary of 18.29m and an average depth of 68m. The site
falls steeply from the street to Georges River at the rear by approximately
41m. There is a fall of approximately 17m within the building footprint of the
proposed dwelling on the site, including the void up to a height of 6.11m
directly underneath the proposed cantilevered garage to the front of the
dwelling.

Existing on the site is a three (3) storey single dwelling
house with a detached double garage near the front boundary. There is an
existing on-site tree near the south western corner of the existing dwelling
house, which is not affected by the proposal.

Adjoining the site on all sides are multi-levelled dwelling
houses (a number of properties on this side of the street has increased
building heights due to the steep fall of the area) with Georges River to the
west. The subject site is located within the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area
and is affected by the Foreshore Building line. The area is generally
residential in character within the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area.

13. The extent
to which the proposal complies with the relevant standards of Hurstville Local
Environmental Plan 2012 is outlined in the table below.

Clause

Standard

Assessment Under HLEP 2012

Complies

Part 2
– Permitted or Prohibited Development

R2 Low
Density Zone

Dwelling
houses and ancillary structures are permissible in the zone

Yes

Objectives
of the Zone

The
proposal is considered to be consistent with the objectives of the zone

Yes (refer to Cl4.6 below)

4.3
– Height of Buildings

9m as
identified on Height of Buildings Map

Existing
(ridge – second floor level): 12.26m

Proposed
(ridge – third floor level bedroom and stairs): more than 9m –
max. 12.06m for a distance of 3.7m

Proposed
(lift overrun): more than 9m – max. 11.4m for a distance of 3.2m

Remainder
of the dwelling complies (total depth of the dwelling is 18.3m)

No (1)

4.6
– Exception to Development Standards

Development
consent must not be granted for development that contravenes a development
standard unless the consent authority has considered a written request from
the applicant that seeks to justify the contravention of the development
standard (Cl 4.6 variation)

The
proposal seeks a variation to Clause 4.3 – Heights of Buildings under
the HLEP 2012. A request for the variation has been provided and is discussed
later in this report

Yes (see below)

5.7
– Development below Mean High Water Mark

Objective:
to ensure appropriate environmental assessment for development carried out on
land covered by tidal waters

No works
proposed below the Mean High Water Mark

N/A

5.10
– Heritage conservation

Heritage
impact statement required if site involves heritage item

Site does
not contain or adjoin a heritage item

N/A

6.1
– Acid Sulfate Soils

Acid
Sulfate Soils Management Plan must be prepared

Site not
affected by acid sulphate soils

N/A

6.2
– Riparian land and watercourses

Objectives:
to protect and maintain the water quality within watercourses; the stability
of the bed and banks of watercourses; aquatic and riparian habitats; and
ecological processes within watercourses and riparian areas

Council
cannot grant consent to the carrying out of development on land to which this
clause applies unless the consent authority is satisfied that:

“(4)(a)
the development is designed, sited and will be managed to avoid any
significant adverse environmental impact.”

Detached pavilion falls within the “Sensitive
Land” on the Riparian Lands and Watercourses LEP Map.

The
proposed pavilion is unlikely to involve significant excavation and therefore
it is considered to satisfy the objectives of this clause of HLEP and is
unlikely to cause significant adverse environmental impact as outlined in
this report

No works
proposed below the Foreshore Building Line. The existing boat shed and jetty
are to remain unchanged

Yes

6.4
– Foreshore Scenic Protection Area

Council
cannot grant consent to the carrying out of development on land within a
Foreshore Scenic Protection Area unless consideration has been made of the
following:

“(3)(a)
affect the natural environment, including topography, rock formations, canopy
vegetation or other significant vegetation, and

(b)
affect the visual environment, including the views to and from the Georges
River, foreshore reserves, residential areas and public places, and

(c)
affect the environmental heritage of Hurstville, and

(d)
contribute to the scenic qualities of the residential areas and the Georges
River by maintaining the dominance of landscape over built form.”

As the
proposal is mainly situated on the existing building footprint it is not
likely to result in any adverse impacts on any significant topographical
feature, rock formations, environmental heritage or any significant
vegetation, subject to conditions of consent. The detached pavilion is to be
located as close to the existing ground level with minimal excavation.

The
following services that are essential for the development shall be available
or that adequate arrangements must be made available when required:

* Supply
of water, electricity and disposal and management of sewerage

*
Stormwater drainage or on-site conservation

*
Suitable vehicular access

Adequate
facilities for the supply of water and for the removal of sewage and drainage
are available to this land

Council’s
Development Engineer has raised no objection, subject to the drainage
conditions attached to the recommendation

New
driveway crossing from Marine Drive

Yes

Yes

Yes

Clause
4.6 – Exceptions to development standards

14.Detailed
Assessment of Variation to Clause 4.3 – Height of Buildings Development
Standard under HLEP 2012

The proposal seeks a variation to Clause 4.3 –
Maximum building heights under the Hurstville Local
Environmental Plan 2012 whereby the maximum
height of a single dwelling house allowed is 9m above the existing ground
level.

A Clause 4.6 variation has been provided for the increased
heights for the western portion of the third floor level (bedroom and stair
way) and lift overrun. A variation to the height can be considered under Clause
4.6 – Exceptions to Development Standards of the HLEP 2012. In assessing
the variation, the questions identified in Clause 4.6 have to be considered.
The applicant’s town planning consultants, Hamptons Property Services has
provided a response to these questions as detailed below:

“1. Is the planning control in
question a development standard?”

Comment: The proposal
seeks to vary the development standard under Clause 4.3 of the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan
2012 for the maximum building heights whereby the maximum height of a single
dwelling house allowed is 9m above the existing ground level. The percentage
variation between the proposal and the development standard is 34%.

“2. What are the underlying
objectives of the development standard?”

The relevant objectives of Clause 4.3 Height of Buildings
are discussed below.

Cl 4.3 Height of Buildings

Objective (a): Compatible with the height, bulk and scale
of the existing and desired future character of the locality

Applicant’s response:

“The height of
the proposed structure, including the lift overrun, rests at RL 44.2. This is
less than the current RL of the pitched roof form at RL 48.93, resulting in an
overall improvement to the streetscape appearance of the site, albeit that the
garage structure dominates the existing form from the street.

In this particular case, the dominance of bulk and scale has two clear
perspectives. The first is from Marine Drive (eastern frontage) and the second
is from the Georges River (western frontage). The appearance of these frontages
is reparably different in terms of bulk and scale, with the eastern frontage
being dominated by dwellings and garages dominating the streetscape appearance
at a single or two storey heights fronting the street, while three and four
storey forms dominate the western frontage. As stated previously, this is as a
result of the fall of the land, being some 41m from east to west.

From the street frontage, the dwelling itself will go almost
unnoticed, with the majority of the front fence enclosing the appearance of the
site, save for a small section of the proposed form towards the northern end of
this. The only visual element that will be relevant from the street is the lift
overrun, which will be approximately 1.3m above the fence height.

If one was standing on the footpath adjoining the site boundary, based
on standard eye height, the lift overrun would go unnoticed, with only a small
proportion of the garage interface visible, if one was looking straight ahead.
Further, the garage has a minimum 5.8m setback from the street frontage and
would have a very limited visual effect. The garage building line is also
generally be consistent with the prevailing building setback along Marine
Drive, particularly that to the north of the site, which is also set back a
modest distance from the street.

If one was standing on the opposing side of Marine Drive, the overall
visual impact, based on standard eye height, would see a viewing range of
between 0 and 10 degrees; again, the separation distance would, however, see
this have limited, if any effect, on the overall appearance of the site.

The proposed fencing treatment, which is of an open style design, as
opposed to being a solid wall, which is how many of the frontages present to
Marine Drive, ensures that a softer visual appearance will be achieved.

As a result of the relocation of the garage, this has resulted in the
minimum 15m2 landscaped area being provided within the front
setback. The front landscaping of 15.21m2 provided, comprises garden
area that will soften the view of the site from the street.

Therefore, from Marine Drive, it is considered that the impact of the
proposal will be extremely limited and a somewhat softer visual form will be
provided than the existing structures within the streetscape.

From the eastern side of the site (Georges River), the proposal will
present with an additional two storeys.

In considering the bulk and scale from this perspective, the view must
be considered from the waterway. If one is to take a position of being located
10m from the shoreline, standing in a vessel, the first point that the new
structure would be visible is at a 33˚ angle at its lowest point and
38˚ at its highest point; the existing structure intercepts at a 30˚
angle; the difference is therefore negligible.

Given the available view corridors, it is much more reasonable to
suggest that what would dominate the view line from the waterway, would be the
view of structures lower down the site, than would the upper level structures.
The proposed pavilion structure, with its RL height at 13.094 is far more
likely to be discernible by the naked eye than would the effect of the
additional storey being proposed on the dwelling

In terms of the effect on No. 16 (to the north) regarding bulk and
scale, the position of built form at the existing levels will remain the same.
While there will be additional building height, it is considered that this will
have limited effect when viewed from the two buildings on No. 16.

In terms of bulk and scale, if the effect is to be felt, it will be
when one is standing in the rear yard of No. 16. Looking towards the site, the
effect of the existing form is what will be experienced, as opposed to the
additional building form. At a 50˚ degree angle, from a standard eye
height, the existing building form will be visible. It is not until after this
point, that the form is apparent.

Therefore, in terms of perceived bulk and scale, the extent of the
existing form is the dominant visual feature when standing in this private open
space area, as opposed to the new form. Therefore, the effect will be limited
in this regard.

In terms of the effect on No. 20 (to the south) regarding bulk and
scale, the position of built form at the existing levels will remain the same.
While there will be additional building height, it is considered that this will
have limited effect when considered from the dwelling itself, as the proposed
new additions are located approximately 7m recessed from No. 20.

The effect may be considered more onerous if one was standing in the
private open space area of No. 20 and looking in a northerly direction towards
the site.

If one was standing mid-way in the rear yard of No. 20, looking
towards the site, it is apparent that the visual presence of the building form
would be the result of the existing structure and not that of the proposed
additions.

The proposed additions would not be visible until approximately
50˚, when taken from a standard eye height of 1.6m above ground level.
This is above an angle of a standard viewing position.

It is therefore considered that the effect of the proposal, in terms
of the additional storeys, will have limited impact in terms of bulk and scale
when viewed from the neighbouring property at No. 20 as the effect of this is
derived from the existing structure as opposed to the new addition.

Additional shadows will be cast as a result of the proposal however,
three hours of sunlight will still be received by the adjoining properties and
therefore will not compromise the amenity of the neighbouring developments. The
stepped building form, as demonstrated in the revised scheme, improves the
existing overshadowing conditions.

It is therefore considered that the height of additional storey on the
building is consistent with the height, bulk and scale that is defined within
the locality and the impact of the additional floors will have no perceivable
impact from the street, the waterway, or neighbouring properties.”

Objective (b): Visual impact and view loss – private
domain

Applicant’s response:

“In terms of visual
impact on neighbouring properties, the height of the proposed addition will
have no impact to those properties to the east of the site, on the opposing
side of Marine Drive, as the level of these is above that of the proposed
additional building height.

The effect on No. 16 to the north of the site will be limited. This is
due to the position of the existing form of No 18, which is forward of the
building alignment of rear building on No. 16. Further, the relocation of the
garage, which is single storey in nature, would be forward to the existing
building line and be consistent with the building alignment of the front
building on No. 16. The visual impact would be minimal.

The existing first floor of No. 16 intersects with the existing second
floor at No. 18. If one is standing on the balcony of No. 16 (RL 33.68), with a
standard eye height of 1.6m applied, this results in an RL of 35.28, which is
approximately 1.09m above the existing level of the second floor of No. 18 (RL
34.19). As the building is remaining in the same position, this would have the
same effect as the existing situation.

In terms of the third floor proposed at No. 18, when standing on the
balcony of No. 16, the RL commences at RL 36.75. When a standard eye height is
added to this, RL 38.35 results. This would intersect approximately 1.05m above
the floor level of the proposed third storey of No. 18 (RL 37.30).

However, given that the location of this form is generally forward of
the building alignment at No. 18, it is considered that there will be limited,
if any, effect to No. 16. In addition, the balcony of No. 16 at this level is
limited in its size (circa 1m deep) and therefore has limited useful capacity
as a private open space area. Therefore, the effect would be limited.

In terms of the visual effect when viewed from the property to the
south of the site (being No.20), there is one potentially affected location,
being the ground floor balcony which has an RL of 38.4.

The ground floor balcony relates to No. 18 at the proposed third floor
level, which has a floor level of RL 37.30 and a ceiling level of 40.00.

The second-floor balcony relates to the proposed garage level, with a
floor level of RL 40.30 and a roof level of 43.0.

The view enjoyed from No.20 (and properties further south) is an
oblique angle across the waterway; all direct views from the balconies of these
properties remain intact and are unaffected by the proposal. Therefore, the
only potential is for an oblique view to be protected.

At the ground floor balcony, this will intersect part-way through the
proposed third floor level. The effect is likely to occur to the deeper section
of the balcony, on the northern side of this level, with the balance of the
balcony retaining the view due to the nature of the viewing angle. The likely
angle of effect would commence at approximately 30˚, mid-way along the
balcony.

Despite that this impact is at a higher level, the position of built
form at the lower levels remains generally the same however, reduces the
impacts by removing the existing projecting balconies (to the rear of the
existing dwelling). The existing building alignment, which is already forward
of the building line of adjoining properties, will be reduced as a result also.
This is a considered response to ensure that adverse privacy and visual aspects
do not result.

Therefore, while extending the form, it is not considered that this
will have a material impact as the built form position is the same, if not
reduced in some parts; therefore presenting limited change, particularly at
this angle.

There is no effect to the view corridor from the second floor balcony
of No. 20. This commences at RL 44.4; when one adds a standard eye height of
1.6m to this, RL 46 results, which is well above the height of the proposed
structure.

Therefore, on the basis of this being an oblique view, in the same
building alignment as the existing structure and retaining all second floor
views, the proposal is considered acceptable in terms of visual impact and
potential view loss.

Objective (b): Visual impact and view loss – public
domain

Applicant’s response:

Beyond that assessment, even if one was to appreciate the site from a
further distance, say mid-way across the waterway (approximately 250m from the
site), or even further afield to the opposing beach to the west (some 500m from
the site).

Views directed back to the site would be classified as distant and, in
the context of the site, the slope and the existing dwellings enclosing the
site on either side would result in negligible, if any, change in this respect.

Therefore, the proposed additions will have no consequent in terms of
visual impact when viewed from the waterway.

Objective (b): Visual privacy

Applicant’s response:

Existing balconies located on the perimeter of the building provided
full access and no privacy treatment. These projecting balconies are proposed
to be removed and the existing glazing located on the northern elevation is
proposed to be reduced by more than 15%.

As previously discussed, the shadow impacts will not incur significant
impact to the neighbouring buildings. The revised scheme has demonstrated an
improvement to the extent of overshadowing on neighbouring properties.

Objective (b): Solar access

Applicant’s response:

In terms of solar access, the height of the proposal will result in
the following:

a. A reduced amount of shadow at 9am on 21 June to 20 Marine Drive, on
its northern wall.

b. A minor increase to the lower ground floor level of No. 20 at 12
noon

c. Additional shadow cast over the lower ground and ground floor at
3:00pm.

In all circumstances, however, the affected locations will retain
three hours of sunlight and therefore not compromise the amenity of these areas
of the site.

Comment:The applicant’s written request to vary the
development standard has been considered and it is concluded that the applicant
has justified that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or
unnecessary in the circumstances of the case, and that there are sufficient
environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development
standard. This conclusion has been reached for the following reasons:

§ The increased building height resulting from the proposed
development is only for the western portion of the third floor level and lift
overrun. Variation to the height is for 3.06m (34% variation) and is located at
the rear of the dwelling. When viewed from the street the additional height is
not readily visible as depicted below.

Fig 4: Photomontages showing the existing (top) and
proposed (bottom)

§ The extent of the view loss is mainly for the water views
from the side elevation of the southern adjoining property and upper level
living areas and balconies of the upstream properties. However the overall view
loss from the proposal is deemed to be ‘minimal’ with the proposal,
because most of the existing water views in an easterly direction from these
neighbouring properties are retained. Additional assessment on view sharing has
been provided in the ‘View Sharing – Planning Principle’
section of this report.

§ The additional height to the development does not result in
any detrimental privacy or shadow impacts to adjoining developments. Shadow
diagrams submitted with the application show that adjoining developments will
receive sunlight in excess of 3 hours between 9am and 3pm during
mid-winter. A detailed solar assessment has been provided in the
‘Solar Assessment’ section of this report.

§ The floor space ratio of the development complies with the
relevant development standard which demonstrates that the height of the
development is not a result of additional floor area being provided to the
development.

§ The proposed development is indicative of and consistent with
developments located in the vicinity of the subject site. The existing
developments in the vicinity of the subject site are multi-levelled dwelling
houses of similar bulk and scale. It is noted that a number of dwelling house
developments on this side of Marine Drive has an increased building height
resulting from the steep fall also.

Objective (c): Impact on Heritage Items

Comment:There are no heritage items within the vicinity of the site
that would be adversely affected by the height of this proposal.

Objective (d): Transition in built form and land use
intensity

Applicant’s response:

It is considered that the proposed additions on the site are
consistent with the expectations of the zone and the building form on this
location. The intensity of the development is also similar to that which exists
on neighbouring sites. Therefore, the proposed additions which exceed the
building height controls are appropriate in this regard.

Comment: The subject
site is located at the centre of the low density area and is unlikely to have
any detrimental impact upon nearby lower density residential zones. The height
non-compliance would have no bearing on built form or land use intensity and is
therefore the proposal is considered to be consistent with the intention of the
control.

Objective (f): Areas unlikely to undergo change

Applicant’s response:

The varying compositions of building form show contemporary
architecture and design, mixed with older building forms. The locality is one
that is undergoing change. Therefore, it is considered that, as time progresses
a greater level of change will be evident, with more contemporary architectural
styles evolving over the existing situation.

This objective is therefore considered irrelevant.

Comment:The requirements of objective (f) are not impacted by the
proposal.

Objective (g): Minimise environmental impacts

Applicant’s response:

The proposed additions, which result in non-compliant building height,
will not result in adverse environmental consequences.

There will be no removal of existing vegetation on the site, with the
existing landscaped character and setting, which particularly dominates the
western side of the site, will be retained.

Adequate storm water management and soil and erosion control measures
will be in place to ensure that there are no adverse consequences on the
natural topography of the land.

This being the case, the proposed non-compliant addition (and indeed
the development as a whole), will not have any adverse environmental impacts.
No disturbance to rock formations will occur with the proposal, as per
Council’s controls.

Comment:Given the subject site is significantly constrained by the
topography of the land and rock outcrop, subsequently there are limits in area
that can be built upon with the retention of the existing dwelling on the site,
it is considered to be reasonable to allow flexibility for the building height
standard. The proposal is considered to be a better outcome in terms of
useability, functionality and amenity for the current and future resident of
the subject property whilst having minimal environmental impacts.

It is considered that the applicant has adequately
addressed the matters identified in Clause 4.3 and Clause 4.6 and the proposed
development is consistent with the objectives identified in Clause 4.3 Height
of Buildings. The height of the proposed development will not result in any
unreasonable impacts on the adjoining properties and does not compromise any
significant views or heritage items (of which there are none in the vicinity of
the site).

“3. What are the underlying
objectives of the zone?”

Applicant’s response:The proposal is also consistent with the objectives of
the R2 Low Density Residential zone as follows:

· To provide for the housing needs of the community within a
low density residential environment.

As identified previously, the site is located in a low
density residential environment, with single dwelling houses on substantially
sized allotments. The scale of this means that the dwellings have a limited
presence to the street and follow the topography of the land, as they are integrated
with the natural landscape, towards the waterway.

The proposal seeks to provide for the housing needs of the
current owners of the site to enable a long-term solution to residing in this
location.

· To encourage development of sites for a range of housing
types, where such development does not compromise the amenity of the
surrounding area, or the natural or cultural heritage of the area.

The proposal will not compromise the amenity of adjoining
properties, having been designed to take account of the positioning of built
form on neighbouring allotment to ensure that visual access; visual privacy and
solar conditions are retained. The natural features of the site will be
retained, with removal of landscaping minimised. There are no cultural heritage
features affecting the site.

· To ensure that a high level of residential amenity is
achieved and maintained.

As is demonstrated in the assessment of this application,
the design and layout of the site will ensure a high degree of both internal
and external amenity to ensure that indoor and outdoor living arrangements are
not compromised and practical living arrangements are achieved to suit family
needs.

· To encourage greater visual amenity through maintaining and
enhancing landscaping as a major element in the residential environment.

As stated above, the removal of vegetation from the site is
limited, therefore ensuring the natural character of the foreshore is retained,
particularly within the foreshore building area.

Comment: The proposal
is considered to be consistent with the zone objectives of R2 – Low
Density Residential on the following basis:

· The proposal does not seek to alter the primary use of the
dwelling and hence it is consistent with the low density character of the area.

· The proposal is unlikely to have adverse amenity impact on
the surroundings subject to conditions attached to the recommendation of this
report.

· The proposal will provide more useable indoor spaces and
hence it provide good amenity for current and future residents of the subject
property.

· The proposal has minimal impact on the existing natural
environment and retains most of the existing landscaped areas on the site.

“4. Is the variation to the development standard
consistent with Clause 4.6 of the HLEP 2012?”

Comment: The proposal
is considered to be site/contextual responsive and appropriate use of the land,
which is consistent with the zone and objectives of the development standard.
The proposed variation will allow appropriate residential additions of the
existing dwelling and is unlikely to cause any unreasonable impacts on the
adjoining properties.

For the above reasons there are sufficient planning grounds
to justify the non-compliant height of the dwelling. It is also noted that in
supporting this Clause 4.6 variation that it is considered unlikely to generate
an undesirable precedent within the area. Therefore the proposal is considered
to be consistent with Clause 4.6 of the HLEP 2012.

“5. Is
compliance with the development standard unreasonable or unnecessary in the
circumstances of the case?”

Applicant’s response: “Clause 4.6(1) provides for flexibility in the
application of development standards to particular developments. In this case,
if the existing building form and the proposed additions do not comply with
Clause 4.3 of the LEP which restricts building height to 9m.

As detailed above, the maximum height of the
existing building is 12.26m and the height of the proposed building varies with
a maximum of 12.06m above existing ground level.

The imposition of the height standard in the
context of this application has some difficulty attached to this, having regard
to the fall of the land, being some 41m from the eastern side to the western
side of the site.

The height control, at Clause 4.3, is not
expressly excluded from the operation of Clause 4.6. Therefore, it is open to
seek, by written request, that the development standard be relaxed in this
case.”

Comment: The
proposed development will result in increased building height for the western
portion of the third floor level and lift overrun which has a maximum height of
12.06m (34% variation). The remainder of the dwelling has a maximum height of
9m above the existing ground level, except for the rear of the existing second
floor level of the dwelling where it has a maximum height of 12.26m.

This was the best option given that the site is constrained
by the steep fall of 41m. The new levels of the dwelling have been stepped into
the natural slope of the land; incorporates cantilevered garage; and utilises
the existing anchorage points of the dwelling to minimise rock/side slope
excavation and disturbance of the slope stability.

The submitted structural engineer’s report has
explored a design option to utilise the void underneath the cantilevered garage
in order to reduce the building height of the dwelling, however it was
concluded that the new levels of the dwelling cannot be relocated further
towards the eastern side of the dwelling, as this design option ‘will
require significant excavation into the side slope. Disturbance to the slope
stability will most likely be administered…as previously discussed the
zone of critical slip of the slope is identified to be in the proximity where
the extent excavation is required for this option. Although this option is
manageable, the costs to undertake excavation and stabilisation during
construction will likely be more than that required for the proposal
(cantilevered garage with a void). Further to this, the proposal (cantilevered
garage with a void) has less impact on the slope stability…and is the
safest option (proposal)” .

Furthermore the proposed development with a cantilevered
garage with a void is considered to be better design outcome in terms of
useability, functionality and internal amenity for the residents of the subject
property as it provides continuous stair way (from the existing stairway) and
lift that can be used on all floor levels of the dwelling, except for the
ground floor level with no lift service. These services for the dwelling are
considered appropriate for the site, which is constrained by its downslope of
more than 45 degrees from the street level to the ground floor level of the
dwelling: sites with a grade of more than 45 degrees is not considered suitable
for inclinators or other means of providing safe movement for residents if no
continuous stair way or lift is provided. Flexibility in applying the
development standard is considered appropriate in this instance due to the
specific site circumstances.

The development standard relating to height is not excluded
from the provisions of Clause 4.6 and a variation to the development standard
can be considered.

The proposed variation will allow appropriate residential
additions of the existing dwelling and is unlikely to cause any unreasonable
impacts on the adjoining properties. For this reason there are sufficient
planning grounds to justify the non-compliant height of the dwelling.

Therefore strict compliance with the maximum building
height is considered to be both unreasonable and unnecessary for the proposed
development.

“6. Is
the objection well founded?”

Comment: The Clause
4.6 variation is considered to be well founded, and compliance with the
development standard is unreasonable in the circumstances of the proposal for
the reasons stated in this report.

STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

13. Compliance with
the relevant state environmental planning policies is detailed and discussed in
the table below.

16. The proposal
has achieved a BASIX Certificate and therefore complies with the objectives of
Section 3.5 of Development Control Plan No 1. The proposed development also complies with the
solar access requirements of Development
Control Plan No1 – LGA Wide.

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN NO 1 – LGA WIDE - SECTION
3.7 STORMWATER

17. The
development can drain to Georges River via gravity. Appropriate conditions of
consent have been attached to this report, should consent be granted.

Where a
first floor balcony is proposed at the rear, 6m from the balustrade

Ground floor to rear: Min. 43.36m

First floor to rear: Min. 43.36m

Yes

Yes

PC4.
Facades

DS4.1.
The dwelling house has a front door or window to a habitable room facing the
primary street frontage.

DS4.2.
The dwelling house incorporates at least two of the

following
building elements facing any street frontage:

a. entry
feature or portico

b.
awnings or other features over windows

c. eaves
and sun shading

d. window
planter box treatment

e. bay
windows or similar features

f. wall
offsets, balconies, verandas, pergolas

or the
like

DS4.3.
Garage doors are not wider than 6m

The main
entrance to the dwelling faces the street frontage

A mix of
entry feature, porch and wall offsets, used on the façade of the
dwelling

5.5m

Yes

Yes

Yes

PC6.
Solar access

DS6.1.
Development allows for at least 3 hours of sunlight on the windows of main
living areas and adjoining principal private open space of adjacent dwellings
between 9.00am and 3.00pm on 22 June (exemptions considered for developments
that comply with all other requirements but are located on sites with an
east-west orientation)

DS6.2.
Development complies with the Energy Efficiency section in Appendix 1 of this
DCP and BASIX requirements

East-west
orientation

Overshadowing
impact is unavoidable due the site orientation

Yes

Yes (2)/discussed below

Yes

PC7.
Visual privacy

DS7.1.
Windows of proposed dwelling must be offset from neighbouring windows by 1m,
especially windows of high-use rooms.

DS7.2.
Neighbouring principal private open space is not overlooked by proposed
living areas.

Window
offsets and hi-light windows are used to mitigate privacy impact.

Minimal
privacy impact

Yes

Yes

PC9.
Vehicle access, parking and manoeuvring

DS9.1.
Minimum car parking:

2 car
parking spaces

2 car
parking spaces provided

Yes

PC10.
Landscaped areas and private open space

DS10.1.
25% of Site Area

DS10.3.
The minimum dimension of landscaped open space is 2m in any direction.

DS10.4.
15sqm of landscaped area to be provided in the front yard

DS10.5.
An area of Principal Private Open Space is to be

provided
which:

a. has a minimum
area of 30m2

b. has a
minimum dimension of 5m

c. is
located at ground level and behind the

front
wall of the dwelling

d. is
directly accessible from a main living area

More than
25% of the site

2m
minimum

Existing:
no landscaped area to front

Proposed:
15.2sqm

More than
30sqm

5m x 5m
minimum

No change
to existing

Yes

Yes

Acceptable (given existing structure and topography)

Yes

Yes

Acceptable

PC11.
Stormwater

Drainage
by gravity to the adjacent road kerb & Council’s drainage system

Drainage
by gravity to Georges River

See
stormwater assessment table provided under the heading ‘DCP No 1
– Section 3.7 Stormwater’ section of this report

As mentioned earlier in the report, the maximum external
wall height has already been breached by the existing dwelling. The
non-complaint external wall height is unavoidable for any first floor additions
to the existing dwelling due to the 17m fall directly within the building
footprint.

The proposal on its merit is considered acceptable and is
recommended to be supported on the following basis:

* The increased external walls on side elevations are only
for a maximum distance of 3.7m when compared to the non-complaint building
envelope of the dwelling that currently exists on the site. This variation is
inevitable due to the steep slope of the site. The areas of encroachment of the
new levels of the dwelling are only for the western rear part of the dwelling
which has a minimum 1.5m setback from the southern side boundary.

* In respect to view loss, the proposal has been designed
with a flat roof to minimise obstruction of views that surrounding properties
benefit from across the subject site.

* The impact from overshadowing from the increased external
wall of the proposal is considered minimal between 9.00am and 3.00pm midwinter
despite the site orientation (east-west). This matter is addressed in the solar
assessment below.

* The street facing façade of the dwelling (to
Marine Drive) complies with the maximum external wall height requirement and
hence it is not considered to adversely impact on the existing streetscape or
to set a precedent in the area.

(2) Solar access (east-west oriented sites)

The proposed development results a loss of solar access to
the southern adjoining property at No 20 Marine Drive, especially 1 x ground
floor bedroom window and ground floor balcony to the rear of the southern
adjoining property facing the common boundary as shown below.

The proposal will cast shadows on the southern
neighbour’s ground floor living areas and private open space (useable
private open space provided within the balconies to the rear of this
neighbour’s property) during the mid-winter solstice, but it is capable
of providing the morning sunlight (from 9am to 12midday) to the majority of the
private open space (balconies to the rear) of this neighbour’s property
due to the height difference between the two properties. The proposed development
has a maximum ridge level of RL44 (garage roof) and a maximum ceiling level of
RL40.3 for the third floor level which are located below the southern
neighbour’s first floor rear balcony level of RL44.4. The extent of
shadows is shown on the shadow elevations provided below:

Fig 5: Elevational shadow diagram (9am)

Fig 6: Elevational shadow diagram (12pm)

Fig 7: Elevational shadow diagram (3pm)

The proposal on its merit is considered acceptable and is
recommended to be supported on the following basis:

* Council’s Development Control Plan No 1 Section 4.4
– Dwelling Houses allows concession on solar access requirement for
east-west oriented sites. Nevertheless the proposal provides a minimum 3hours
of sunlight on the main living room windows and private open space of the
southern adjoining property at No 20 Marine Drive.

* Overshadowing results mainly from the site orientation
and multi-level construction of the proposal.

* As discussed in this report, reasonable attempts have
been made to improve solar access through the provision of a stepped building
form that responds to the topography of the site. It would be unreasonable to
insist on other methods of construction such as side slope excavation or single
storey construction (whether the application is for a single dwelling house or
a dual occupancy building) for all northerly aspect properties in the street as
this would only be the viable option to restrict overshadowing impact on all
properties to the south, the overshadowing impact is not the only determining
factor in the assessment of this application and more onerous standards with
respect to the development such as the single storey construction are not
required under Section 79C(3A) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act
1979 (as amended).

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN NO 1 – LGA WIDE - SECTION
4.7 OUTBUILDINGS

19. The
extent to which the detached pavilion to the rear of the site complies with the
outbuilding controls is outlined in the table below.

Section 4.7

Requirements

Proposed

Complies

PC1 Floor Space Ratio

Combined
floor space cannot exceed the maximum permitted floor space for the site
under the LEP

20. The
proposed development requires payment of $8,845.19 of Section 94A contribution
based on the provisions of Georges River Section 94A Development Contributions
Plan.

Contribution
Type

Contribution
Amount

Total
Contributions:

$8,845.19

Prescribed
Matters

21. Not
applicable.

Environmental, Social and Economic Impacts

Natural
Environment

22. No
trees are to be removed from the site. Overall the proposal incorporated
sufficient landscaped areas to soften the building especially when viewed from
the street. The proposal is unlikely to have any adverse impact upon the
natural environment as a site/waste management plan, sediment and erosion
control plan and drainage plans have been considered and addressed any
potential impacts.

Built Environment

23. The
proposal does not result in any unacceptable material built environment
impacts. The Development Control Plan variations sought with this application
are considered acceptable and the site has genuine site constraints with the
existing topography and irregular shape of the land.

In terms of overshadowing, the proposal allows a minimum of
3 hours to private open space and windows to habitable rooms on the adjoining
properties as required under Development Control Plan No 1 – LGA Wide as
detailed under the ‘Solar access’ section of this report. View loss has been discussed under the ‘Submissions
– view sharing assessment’ section of this report.

Suitability of the site

26. It is
considered that the proposed development is of a scale and design that is
suitable for the site having regard to its size and shape, its topography,
vegetation and relationship to adjoining developments.

Submissions

27. Ten(10)
letters were sent to adjoining residents during two (2) rounds of notification
periods of fourteen (14) days each round in which to view the plans and submit
any comments on the proposal. Eight (8) submissions (inclusive of duplicate
submissions from the same submitter) were received in response to this
application. The concerns raised in the submissions are summarised as follows.

· Bulk and Scale of the development (excessive size, out of
scale and overdevelopment)

Comment:The applicant has amended the plans from that originally submitted
so that the dwelling house stepped into the natural contours and is three (3)
storeys for the entire length of the dwelling that resembles the existing three
(3) storey dwelling on the site. The proposed development is not considered to
be out of scale when compared to other existing developments in the area that
have increased building height due to the topography The overall FSR is well
below the maximum allowed. The concern relating to the non-compliant
building height has been addressed in the Clause 4.6 section of this report,
which is recommended to be supported.

The development’s compliance and variations to the
provisions of the relevant requirements are discussed in the report above.

Location and size of the proposed garage

29. Concerns
with the proposed garage being located further away from the front boundary,
particularly in regards to:

· Potential view loss with the new location of the garage

· Not keeping with the current established setback of the
existing garages of surrounding properties (No 14, 20, 22 and 24 Marine Drive
have less than 500mm garage setback from Marine Drive)

· Increased size of the proposed garage

Comment: The proposed garage provides 6m front setback that
complies with the current DCP controls. The increased garage setback is
considered acceptable as it reduces the dominance of the garage upon the
streetscape and provides landscaped areas on the sides of the driveway for
visual relief. Also the proposed parking solution improves the current parking
situation whereby on-street parking is limited in its availability on Marine
Drive.

View loss

30. Concerns
with a potential view loss from the proposed development, particularly in
regards to:

· Potential view loss with the increased building height of
the subject property

· Water views from ground floor living areas and first floor
main bedroom of the southern adjoining property at 20 Marine Drive

Comment:The applicant
has amended the plans from that originally submitted so that the increased
building height is reduced to 3.06m above the maximum 9m permitted rather than
7.22m with the original submission.

View sharing assessment

24. In
considering the impact on the built environment the potential view loss as a
result of the development has to be considered. The potential view loss relates
to the views from the uphill properties on the other side of Marine Drive and
20 Marine Drive which benefits from the existing dwelling to gain side water
views and adjoins the southern boundary of the subject site.

The applicant has amended the plans from that
originally submitted so that the dwelling house stepped with the natural
contours and in consideration of the findings of the submitted structural
engineer’s report.

Land and Environment Court Planning Principles

25. To determine
whether or not this is reasonable the four (4) step assessment as cited from
the View Sharing – Planning Principle (Tenacity Consulting v Warringah
[2004] NSWLEC 140) by the NSW Land and Environment Court was implemented and considered
as follows:

First Step – Water view is valued more
than land view.

Whole view valued more than partial view (eg water view in
which the interface between land and water is visible is more valuable than one
which is obscured.

Comment: The views in
concern are water views of Georges River. The water view of the uphill property
at No 9 Marine Drive is unlikely to be affected (refer to Fig 4 and photo
below), however a partial side view from the southern adjoining property at No
20 Marine will be affected. No 20 Marine Drive has direct whole water view
mainly in a westerly direction which is unlikely to be affected by the proposed
development.

Second Step - The part
of the property, that the views are obtained (eg protection of views across
side boundaries is more difficult than the protection of views from front or
rear boundaries).

Standing view or view from sitting position.

Expectation to retain side views and sitting views is often
unrealistic.

Comment: No 20 Marine
Drive obtains views across the side boundary. The water view is from the sides
of ground floor and first floor rear balconies with the water views available
from both sitting and standing positions. The proposal will retain most of the
direct whole water views in the westerly direction as the proposed dwelling is
stepped into the natural contours and is located well below this
neighbour’s property as well as it includes a flat roof to minimise
obstruction of views of from the southern neighbour’s upper living areas
through the subject site.

Third Step - Extent of the impact / whole of
the property, not just for the view that is affected. Impact on views from
living areas is more significant than from bedrooms or service areas (though
views from kitchens are highly valued as more time is likely to be spent in
kitchens).

Impact may be assessed quantitatively, or qualitatively (it
is usually more useful to assess the view loss this way as negligible, minor,
moderate, severe or devastating).

Comment: The proposal
will mainly impact on the living areas and balcony at the ground floor level of
the southern property, which is a partial side view of Georges River. Overall
the proposal is considered have ‘minimal’ loss of views, because
most of the existing water views from this neighbouring property is retained.

Fourth Step - Reasonableness of the proposal that is
causing the impact. Compliance with all planning controls would be more
reasonable than one that breaches them;

a) Impact on views arises as a
result of non-compliance with one or more planning controls, even a moderate
impact may be considered unreasonable,

b) Complying proposal, to
determine whether a more skilful design could provide the applicant with the
same development potential and amenity and reduce the impact on the views of
neighbours/ if not, then the view impact of a complying development would
probably be considered acceptable and the view sharing reasonable.

Comment: The proposal
as amended is a more skilful design that results in a better outcome for the
site and is considered to be acceptable. The increased building height is
results in a relatively minor view loss from the side of the ground floor
balcony and living areas on the side elevation of the neighbour’s
property.

Therefore the proposal in its current form that complies
with the majority of planning controls is considered acceptable and the view
sharing is considered to be reasonable.

Overall the proposal is not considered to result in any
unreasonable impacts built environment impacts subject to conditions of
consent.

Overshadowing

31. Concerns
were raised in relation to a potential overshadowing impact, particularly in
regards to:

· ‘By any account “three hours of
sunlight” in an entire day is inadequate’

· Clothes drying area within the ground floor balcony will be
overshadowed particularly during mid-winter

Comment:The proposal
provides a minimum 3hours of sunlight on the main living room windows and
ground floor balcony of the southern adjoining property at No 20 Marine Drive
in accordance with DCP No 1.

Solar access has been discussed under the ‘DCP
– solar access’ section of this report.

Privacy

32. A
concern was raised in relation to the rear balcony from the third floor level
of the dwelling. This rear balcony has been deleted with the amended proposal.
A condition has been included in the recommendation of this report to require
appropriate privacy screening for the rear balcony/barbeque area at the second
floor level of the dwelling.

General concerns and suggestions with this application

33. The
following general concerns in relation to this application were submitted by
the neighbours:

· Visual impact on the natural setting of the area (from
Marine Drive and Georges River)

· Character of the local neighbourhood

· Undesirable precedent with the out of scale development

· Public interest

· Disruption – traffic and associated noise from the
development during demolition and construction

Comment: The proposal
has been amended to address the above concerns and is considered to be
compatible with the existing dwelling house on the subject site as discussed in
the report. Appropriate conditions have been included to deal with the concern
relating to demolition and construction works for the proposed development.

Mediation/Public Meeting

34. A
formal mediation or public meeting has not been conducted for the development
application however the development assessment officer met with resident
objectors on site, viewed their properties, and discussed their concerns.

Public
Interest

35. The
proposed development is of a character that does not conflict with the public
interest for the reasons stated in this report.

Consultation
– Internal Referrals

Internal Referrals

Development Engineer

36. Council’s
Development Engineer has examined the application and raised no objection
subject to conditions of consent being attached to any consent granted.

Conclusion

37. The
application has been assessed having regard to the Heads of Consideration under
Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the
provisions of the relative State Environmental Planning Policies, Local
Environmental Plans and Development Control Plans.

The request for a Clause 4.6 variation to the maximum
building height and Development Control Plan variation to the maximum external
wall height are supported for the reasons stated in this report, given the
subject site is constrained with the existing rock formations and natural
slope. It is considered that the proposal is unlikely to result in any unacceptable
material built environment for the reasons detailed in the report.

The Development Control Plan variations to the maximum
external wall height and solar access are supported for the reasons stated in
this report. It is considered that the proposal is unlikely to result in any
unreasonable impacts on both natural and built environment for the reasons
detailed in the report.

Eight (8) submissions were received in relation to the
proposal. These submissions have been discussed and addressed in the report.

Accordingly the application is recommended for approval
subject to conditions of consent.

DETERMINATION

38. THAT pursuant to Section 80(1)(a) of the Environmental
Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended, the Council, grants development
consent to Development Application DA2017/0114 for the alterations and
additions to dwelling – additional levels to dwelling to form a
multi-level dwelling, new terrace and pavilion to rear, new garage and front
fence on Lot 154
DP 11934 and known as 18 Marine Drive OATLEY,
subject to the attached conditions:

Schedule A – Site Specific Conditions

GENERAL CONDITIONS

These conditions have been imposed to ensure that the
development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans and to ensure
that the appropriate fees and bonds are paid in relation to the development.

1. DEV6.1
- Approved Plans - The development must be implemented in accordance
with the approved plans and supporting documentation listed below which have
been endorsed by Council’s approved stamp, except where marked up on the
plans and/or amended by conditions of this consent:

Description

Reference No.

Date

Revision

Prepared by

Site Analysis Plan

DA01

15/11/17

E

Those Architects

Site Plan

DA02

15/11/17

E

Those Architects

Floor Plans (Demolition)

DA03 - DA06

15/11/17

E

Those Architects

Ground Floor Plan (Proposed)

DA07

15/11/17

G

Those Architects

First Floor Plan (Proposed)

DA08

15/11/17

G

Those Architects

Second Floor Plan (Proposed)

DA09

15/11/17

G

Those Architects

Third Floor Plan (Proposed)

DA10

15/11/17

H

Those Architects

Garage Floor Plan (Proposed)

DA11

15/11/17

H

Those Architects

Roof Plan (Proposed)

DA12

15/11/17

H

Those Architects

Section (AA)

DA13

15/11/17

G

Those Architects

Section (BB)

DA14

15/11/17

G

Those Architects

Section (CC)

DA15

15/11/17

F

Those Architects

Elevation (North)

DA16

15/11/17

G

Those Architects

Elevation (South)

DA17

15/11/17

G

Those Architects

Elevation (East)

DA18

15/11/17

G

Those Architects

Elevation (West)

DA19

15/11/17

H

Those Architects

Pavilion Plan

DA20

15/11/17

D

Those Architects

Pavilion Elevations

DA21

15/11/17

D

Those Architects

GFA Calculations

DA22 - DA24

15/11/17

D

Those Architects

Shadow Diagrams

DA25 - DA30

15/11/17

D

Those Architects

Elevational Shadow Diagrams

DA31 - DA36

15/11/17

C & D

Those Architects

View Analysis Montages

DA52 - DA56

15/11/17

B

Those Architects

Schedule of Colours and Finishes

--

28/04/17

--

Those Architects

Survey Plan

19220-1

02/09/16

--

Norton Survey Partners

Waste Management Plan

DA51

--

A

Those Architects

SEPARATE APPROVALS UNDER OTHER LEGISLATION

These conditions have been imposed to ensure that the
applicant is aware of any separate approvals required under other legislation,
for example: approvals required under the Local Government Act 1993 or the
Roads Act 1993.

2. APR7.2
- Section 138 Roads Act 1993 and Section 68 Local Government Act 1993 -
Unless otherwise specified by a condition of this consent, this Development
Consent does not give any approval to undertake works on public infrastructure.

Separate approval is required under Section 138 of the Roads Act 1993
and/or Section 68 of the Local Government Act 1993 for any of the following
activities carried out in, on or over a public road (including the footpath)
listed below.

An application is required to be lodged and approved prior to the
commencement of any of the following works or activities;

(a) Placing or storing materials or equipment;

(b) Placing or storing waste containers or skip bins;

(c) Erecting a structure or carrying out work

(d) Swinging or hoisting goods over any part of a public road by means of
a lift, crane or the like;

(e) Pumping concrete from a public road;

(f) Pumping water from the site into the public road;

(g) Constructing a vehicular crossing or footpath;

(h) Establishing a “works zone”;

(i) Digging up or disturbing the surface of a public road (eg Opening the
road for the purpose of connections to utility providers);

(j) Stormwater and ancillary works in the road reserve;

(k) Stormwater and ancillary to public infrastructure on private land;
and

(l) If any excavation is to be supported by the use of below ground
(cable) anchors that are constructed under Council’s roadways/footways.

These separate activity approvals must be obtained and evidence of the
approval provided to the Certifying Authority prior to the issue of the
Construction Certificate.

The relevant
Application Forms for these activities can be downloaded from Council’s website
www.georgesriver.nsw.gov.au. For
further information, please contact Council’s Customer Service Centre on
(02) 9330 6400.

To apply for approval, complete the Driveway Crossing on Council Road
Reserve Application Form which can be downloaded from Georges River
Council’s Website at www.georgesriver.nsw.gov.au. Lodge the application
form, together with the associated fees at Council’s Customer Service
Centre, during business hours. Refer to Section P1 and P2, in Council’s
adopted Fees and Charges for the administrative and inspection charges
associated with Vehicular Crossing applications.

An approval for a new or modified vehicular crossing will contain the
approved access and/or alignment levels which will be required to construct the
crossing and/or footpath. Once approved, all work shall be carried out in
accordance with Council’s specifications applicable at the time, prior to
the issue of an Occupation Certificate.

4. APR7.5
- Road Opening Permit - A Road Opening Permit must be obtained from
Council, in the case of local or regional roads, or from the RMS, in the case
of State roads, for every opening of a public road reserve to access services
including sewer, stormwater drains, water mains, gas mains, and
telecommunications before the commencement of work in the road.

REQUIREMENTS OF OTHER GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

These conditions have been imposed by other NSW Government
agencies either through their role as referral bodies, concurrence authorities
or by issuing General Terms of Approval under the Integrated provisions of the
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

5. GOV8.12
- Sydney Water - Tap in TM - The approved plans must be submitted
to a Sydney Water Tap in TM to determine whether the development application
will affect Sydney Water’s sewer and water mains, stormwater drains
and/or easements, and if further requirements need to be met. The
approved plans will be appropriately endorsed. For details please refer
to ‘Plumbing, building and developing’ section of Sydney
Water’s web site at www.sydneywater.com.au then
see ‘Building’, or telephone 13000 TAP IN (1300 082 746). The
Certifying Authority must ensure that a Tap in TM agent has appropriately
stamped the plans prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF THE CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE

These conditions either require modification to the
development proposal or further investigation/information prior to the issue of
the Construction Certificate to ensure that there is no adverse impact.

6. CC9.1
- Fees to be paid - The fees listed in the
table below must be paid in accordance with the conditions of this consent and
Council’s adopted Fees and Charges applicable at the time of payment
(available at www.georgesriver.nsw.gov.au).

Payments must be made prior to the issue of the
Construction Certificate or prior to the commencement of work (if there is no
associated Construction Certificate).

Please contact council prior to the payment of
S94 Contributions to determine whether the amounts have been indexed from that
indicated below in this consent and the form of payment that will be accepted
by Council.

Council will only accept Bank Cheque or
Electronic Funds Transfer (EFT) for transaction values of $500,000 or over.
Council must be contacted prior to payment to determine correct total amount to
be paid and bank account details (if applicable).

A summary of the fees to be paid are listed
below:

Fee Type

Fee

GENERAL FEES

Long Service Levy (to Long Service
Corporation) Or, provide evidence of Payment direct to the Long Service
Corporation. See https://portal.longservice.nsw.gov.au/bci/levy/

Builders Damage Deposit

$1,900.00

Inspection Fee for Refund of Damage Deposit

$150.00

Georges River Council Section 94A Development
Contributions Plan 2017

$8,845.19

General Fees

The fees and charges above are subject to
change and are as set out in the version of Council's Schedule of Fees and
Charges or as required by other Government Authorities, applicable at the time
of payment.

Development Contributions

The Section 94 contribution is imposed to
ensure that the development makes adequate provision for the demand it
generates for public amenities and public services within the area.

A Section 94A contribution has been levied on
the subject development pursuant to the Georges River Council Section 94A
Contributions Plan.

Indexation

The above contributions will be adjusted at the
time of payment to reflect changes in the cost of delivering public amenities
and public services, in accordance with the indices provided by the relevant
Section 94 Development Contributions Plan.

Timing of Payment

The contribution must be paid and receipted by
Council prior to the release of the Construction Certificate.

Further Information

A copy of the all current Development
Contributions Plans may be inspected or a copy purchased at Council’s
offices (Georges River Civic Centre, MacMahon Street, Hurstville and Kogarah
Library and Service Centre, Kogarah Town Square, Belgrave Street, Kogarah) or
viewed on Council’s website www.georgesriver.nsw.gov.au.

7. CC9.13
- Low reflectivity roof - Roofing materials must be low glare and
reflectivity. Details of finished external materials including colours and
texture must be provided to the Certifying Authority.

These measures are to be implemented prior to the commencement of work
(including demolition and excavation) and must remain until works are completed
and all exposed surfaces are landscaped/sealed.

9. CC9.33
- Pre-Construction Dilapidation Report - Private Land - A professional
engineer specialising in structural or geotechnical engineering shall prepare a
Pre-Construction Dilapidation Report detailing the current structural condition
of adjoining premises including but not limited to:

(a) All neighbouring buildings likely to be affected by the excavation as
determined by the consulting engineer.

The report shall be prepared at the expense of the applicant and
submitted to the satisfaction of the Certifying Authority prior to the issue of
the Construction Certificate.

A copy of the pre-construction dilapidation report is to be provided to
the adjoining properties (subject of the dilapidation report), a minimum of 5
working days prior to the commencement of work. Evidence confirming that a copy
of the pre-construction dilapidation report was delivered to the adjoining
properties must be provided to the PCA.

Should the owners of properties (or their agents) refuse access to carry
out inspections, after being given reasonable written notice, this shall be
reported to Council to obtain Council’s agreement to complete the report
without access. Reasonable notice is a request for access in no sooner than 14
days between 8.00am-6.00pm.

10. CC9.34
- Stormwater System - The submitted stormwater
plan has been assessed as a concept plan only. Final detailed plans of the
drainage system, prepared by a professional engineer specialising in hydraulic engineering,
shall be submitted for approval with the Construction Certificate.

All stormwater shall drain
by gravity directly to Georges River in a drainage system in accordance with
the Australian/New Zealand Standard AS/NZS 3500.3: 2015 (as amended).

The design of this
proposed drainage system must be prepared by a qualified practising hydraulics
engineer (with details of qualifications being provided) and be submitted for
approval with the Construction Certificate application.

11. CC9.36
- Detailed Stormwater Drainage Design - The submitted stormwater plan
has been assessed as a concept plan only. Stormwater
drainage plans including pipe sizes, type, grade, length, invert levels,
dimensions and types of drainage pits prepared by a qualified practising
hydraulics engineer (with details of qualifications being provided) in
accordance with the Australian Institute of Engineers Australian Rainfall and
Runoff (1987) and Council's Stormwater Drainage Guidelines, shall accompany
the application for the Construction Certificate.

12. CC9.4 - Damage
Deposit - Minor Works - In order to insure against damage to Council
property the following is required:

(a) Pay Council, before the issue of the Construction Certificate, a
damage deposit for the cost of making good any damage caused to any Council
property as a result of the development: $1,900.00

(b) Pay Council, before the issue of the Construction Certificate, a
non-refundable inspection fee to enable assessment of any damage and repairs
where required: $150.00

(c) Submit to Council, before the commencement of work, a photographic
record of the condition of the Council nature strip, footpath and driveway
crossing, or any area likely to be affected by the proposal.

At the completion of work Council will inspect the public works, and the
damage deposit will be refunded in full upon completion of work where no damage
occurs. Otherwise the amount will be either forfeited or partly refunded
according to the amount of damage.

13. CC9.48 - Structural
details - Engineer's details prepared by a practising Structural Engineer
being used to construct all reinforced concrete work, structural beams, columns
and other structural members. The details are to be submitted to the Principal
Certifying Authority for approval prior to construction of the specified works.

A copy shall be forwarded to Council where Council is not
the PCA.

14. CC9.51 - Engineer’s
Certificate - A certificate from a professional Engineer specialising in
structural engineering certifying the structural adequacy of the existing
structure, to support all proposed additional superimposed loads shall be
submitted to the Certifying Authority prior to the issue of the Construction
Certificate.

15. CC9.54 - Geotechnical
report - Geotechnical Reports: The applicant must submit a Geotechnical
Report, prepared by a professional engineer specialising in geotechnical
engineering who holds the relevant Certificate of accreditation as required
under the Building Professionals Act 2005 in relation to dilapidation reports,
all site works and construction. This is to be submitted before the issue
of the Construction Certificate and is to include:

(a) Investigations certifying the stability of the site and specifying
the design constraints to be placed on the foundation, any
earthworks/stabilization works and any excavations.

(b) Dilapidation Reports on the adjoining properties including, but not
limited to all properties with a common boundary to the site prior to any
excavation of site works. The Dilapidation Report is to include
assessments on, but not limited to, the dwellings at those addresses and any
external paths, grounds etc. This must be submitted to the PCA and the
adjoining residents as part of the application for the Construction Certificate.
Adjoining residents are to be provided with the report five (5) working days
prior to any works on the site.

(c) On-site guidance by a vibration specialist during the early part of
excavation.

(d) Measures to minimise vibration damage and loss of support to other
buildings. Where possible any excavation into rock is to be carried out with
tools such as rock saws which reduce vibration to adjoining buildings and
associated structures. Where a hydraulic hammer is to be used within 30 metres
of any building (other than a path or a fence) the report shall detail the
maximum size of hammer to be used and provide all reasonable recommendations to
manage impacts.

(e) Sides of the excavation are to be piered prior to any excavation
occurring to reinforce the walls of the excavation to prevent any subsidence to
the required setbacks and neighbouring sites.

16. CC9.6 - Site
Management Plan - A Site Management Plan detailing all weather access
control points, sedimentation controls, fencing, builder’s site sheds
office, amenities, materials storage and unloading arrangements must be
submitted with the application for the Construction Certificate.

17. CC9.78 - Waste
Management Plan - A Waste Management Plan incorporating all requirements in
respect of the provision of waste storage facilities, removal of all materials
from the site that are the result of site clearing, extraction, and, or
demolition works and the designated Waste Management Facility shall be
submitted to the Certifying Authority prior to the issue of any Construction
Certificate.

18. CC9.83 - Landscape
Plan - A detailed landscape plan, drawn to scale, by a qualified landscape
architect or landscape designer, must be submitted prior to the issue of the
Construction Certificate. The plan must include:

(h) Any required fencing, retaining walls and other structures not shown
on other approved architectural and engineering plans.

19. CC9.85 - Tree
Removal prohibited - This consent does not approve the removal or pruning
(branches or roots) of any trees on the subject property, Council’s
public footway, public reserves or on neighbouring properties.

20. CC9.87 - Tree
Protection and Retention - The following trees shall be retained and
protected:

Tree Species

Location of Tree / Tree No

1 x Eucalyptus tree

Rear of the dwelling on the subject site

1 x Eucalyptus tree

No 20 Marine Drive to the south of the subject site

Details of the trees to be retained must be included on the Construction
Certificate plans.

General Tree Protection Measures

(a) All trees to be retained shall be protected and maintained during
demolition, excavation and construction of the site.

(b) The tree protection measures must be in undertaken in accordance
AS4970 -2009 Protection of trees on development sites.

(c) Details of the tree protection measures to be implemented must be
provided with the application for a Construction Certificate by a suitably
qualified Arborist (AQF Level 5 or above in Arboriculture).

(d) The Arborist must be present on-site during the stages of
construction when works are being undertaken that could impact on the tree
canopy or root zone within the tree protection zone to implement the tree
protection measures as required.

(e) Unless otherwise specified in AS 4970-2009, a protective fence
consisting of 1.8 metres high, fully supported chainmesh fence shall be erected
around the base of the tree. The distance of the fence from the base of each
tree is to be in accordance with the TPZ listed in the table above. A layer of
organic mulch 100 millimetres thick shall be placed over the protected area and
no soil or fill should be placed within the protection area.

(f) No services shall be installed within the TPZ of the tree unless
approved by Council. This fence shall be kept in place during demolition,
construction and also have a sign displaying ‘Tree Protection Zone’
attached to the fence and must also include the name and contact details of the
Project Arborist.

Excavation works near tree to be retained

(g) Excavations around the trees to be retained on site or the adjoining
properties shall be supervised by the Project Arborist to ensure that the root
system will not adversely be affected.

(h) Where the Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) of trees on site or adjoining
sites become compromised by any excavation works, the Project arborist shall be
consulted to establish the position of any major roots and determine the
necessary measures to protect these roots. The recommendations of the Arborist
shall be submitted to Council prior to any further demolition or construction
works taking place.

(i) Tree Protection Zone around the trees to be retained are not to have
soil level changes or services installed in this area. Any structures proposed
to be built in this area of the trees are to utilise pier and beam or
cantilevered slab construction.

Details satisfying this condition shall be shown on the Construction
Certificate plans.

Pier and Beams

(j) To preserve the as marked on prepared by dated, the footings of the
proposed shall be isolated pier and beam construction within a metre
radius of the trunk. The piers shall be hand dug and located such that no roots
of a diameter greater than 50mm are severed or injured in the process of any
site works during the construction period. The beam shall be located on or
above the existing soil levels.

Details of this construction method shall be shown on the Construction
Certificate plans.

21. CC9.9 - BASIX
Commitments - All energy efficiency measures as detailed in the BASIX
Certificate No. A277273_05 must be implemented on the plans lodged with the
application for the Construction Certificate.

PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF WORK (INCLUDING DEMOLITION AND
EXCAVATION)

These conditions have been imposed to ensure that all
pre-commencement matters are dealt with and finalised prior to the commencement
of work.

22. PREC10.1 - Demolition
& Asbestos - The demolition work shall comply with the provisions of
Australian Standard AS2601:2001 - Demolition of Structures, NSW Work Health
& Safety Act 2011 and the NSW Work Health & Safety Regulation
2011. The work plans required by AS2601:2001 shall be accompanied by a
written statement by a suitably qualified person that the proposals contained
in the work plan comply with the safety requirements of the Standard. The work
plans and the safety statement shall be submitted to the PCA prior to the
commencement of works.

For demolition work which involves the removal of asbestos, the asbestos
removal work must be carried out by a licensed asbestos removalist who is
licensed to carry out the work in accordance with the NSW Work Health &
Safety Act 2011 and the NSW Work Health & Safety Regulation 2011 unless
specified in the Act and/or Regulation that a license is not required.

All demolition work including the removal of asbestos, shall be
undertaken in accordance with the Demolition Code of Practice (NSW Work Cover
July 2015)

Note: Copies of the Act, Regulation and Code of Practice can be
downloaded free of charge from the SafeWork NSW website:
www.SafeWork.nsw.gov.au.

23. PREC10.10 - Dial
before your dig - The applicant shall contact “Dial Before You Dig on
1100” to obtain a Service Diagram prior to the issuing of the
Construction Certificate. The sequence number obtained from “Dial
Before You Dig” shall be forwarded to Council’s Engineers for their
records.

24. PREC10.14 - Registered
Surveyors Report - During Development Work - A report must be submitted to
the PCA at each of the following applicable stages of construction:

(c) Completion of Foundation Walls - Before any construction of flooring,
detailing the location of the structure relative to adjacent boundaries and
floor levels relative to the datum shown on the approved plans.

(d) Completion of Floor Slab Formwork - Before pouring of concrete/walls
construction, detailing the location of the structure relative to adjacent
boundaries and floor levels relative to the datum shown on the approved
plans. In multi-storey buildings a further survey must be provided at
each subsequent storey.

(f) Completion of all Work - Detailing the location of the structure
(including eaves/gutters) relative to adjacent boundaries and its height
relative to the datum shown on the approved plans. A final Check Survey
must indicate the reduced level of the main ridge.

Work must not proceed beyond each stage until the PCA is satisfied that
the height and location of the building is proceeding in accordance with the
approved plans.

25. PREC10.15 - Utility
Arrangements - Arrangements are to be made with utility authorities in
respect to the services supplied by those authorities to the development. The
cost associated with the provision or adjustment of services within the road
and footway areas is to be at the applicant’s expense.

(a) The developer /builder must notify adjoining residents five (5)
working days prior to demolition. Such notification is to be a clearly
written note giving the date demolition will commence, contact details of the
developer/builder, licensed asbestos demolisher and the appropriate regulatory
authority. Notification is to be placed in the letterbox of every premises
(including every residential flat or unit, if any) either side and immediately
at the rear of the demolition site.

(b) Five (5) working days prior to demolition, the developer/builder is
to provide written notification to Council advising of the demolition date,
details of the SafeWork licensed asbestos demolisher and the list of residents
advised of the demolition.

(c) On demolition sites where buildings to be demolished contain
asbestos, a standard commercially manufactured sign containing the words
“DANGER ASBESTOS REMOVAL IN PROGRESS” measuring not less than 400mm
x 300mm is to be erected in a prominent visible position (from street frontage)
on the site. The sign is to be erected prior to demolition work commencing and
is to remain in place until such time as all asbestos material has been removed
from the site to an approved waste facility.

27. PREC10.3 - Demolition
work involving asbestos removal - Work involving bonded asbestos removal
work (of an area of more than 10 square metres) or friable asbestos removal
work must be undertaken by a person who carries on a business of such removal
work in accordance with a licence under clause 458 of the Work Health and
Safety Regulation 2011.

DURING WORK

These conditions have been imposed to ensure that there is
minimal impact on the adjoining development and surrounding locality during the
construction phase of the development.

28. CON11.1 - Site
sign - Soil & Erosion Control Measures - Prior to the commencement of
works (including demolition and excavation), a durable site sign, issued by
Council in conjunction with this consent, must be erected in a prominent
location on site. The site sign warns of the penalties which apply to
pollution, storing materials on road or footpath and breaches of the conditions
relating to erosion and sediment controls. The sign must remain in a prominent
location on site up until the completion of all site and building works.

29. CON11.11
Physical connection of Stormwater to site - No
work is permitted to proceed above the ground floor slab level of the building
until there is physical connection of the approved stormwater drainage system
from the land the subject of this consent directly to Georges River via
effective erosion control fully located on the development site.

30. CON11.12 - Cost
of work to be borne by the applicant - The applicant shall bear the cost of
all works associated with the construction of the development that occurs on
Council property. Care must be taken to protect Council's roads,
including the made footway, kerbs, etc., and, where plant and vehicles enter
the site, the footway shall be protected against damage by deep-sectioned
timber members laid crosswise, held together by hoop iron straps and chamfered
at their ends. This construction shall be maintained in a state of good
repair and condition throughout the course of construction.

31. CON11.13 - Obstruction
of Road or Footpath - The use of the road or footpath for the storage of
any building materials, waste materials, temporary toilets, waste or skip bins,
or any other matter is not permitted unless separately approved by Council
under Section 138 of the Roads Act 1993 and/or under Section 68 of the Local
Government Act 1993. Penalty infringement Notices may be issued for any
offences and severe penalties apply.

32. CON11.2 - Hours
of construction for demolition and building work - Any work activity or
activity associated with the development consent that requires the use of any
tools (including hand tools) or any power operated plant and machinery that
creates noise on or adjacent to the site shall not be performed, or permitted
to be performed, except between the hours of 7.00 am to 5.00 pm, Monday to
Saturday inclusive. No work or ancillary activity is permitted on Sundays, or
Public Holidays.

Note: A penalty infringement notice may be issued for any offence.

33. CON11.21 - Waste
Management Facility - All materials removed from the site as a result of
demolition, site clearing, site preparation and, or excavation shall be
disposed of at a suitable Waste Management Facility. No vegetation, article,
building material, waste or the like shall be ignited or burnt.

Copies of all receipts for the disposal, or processing of all such
materials shall be submitted to the PCA and Council, where Council is not the
Principal Certifying Authority.

34. CON11.24 - Excavation
works near tree to be retained - Excavation around the tree/s to be
retained on site or the adjoining properties shall be supervised by the Project
Arborist to ensure that the root system will not be adversely affected.

Where the Tree Protection Zone of trees on site or adjoining sites become
compromised by any excavation works, the Project Arborist shall be consulted to
establish the position of any major roots and determine the necessary measures
to protect these roots. The recommendations of the Arborist shall be submitted
to Council prior to any further demolition or construction works taking place.

35. CON11.3 - Ground
levels and retaining walls - The ground levels of the site shall not be
excavated, raised or filled, or retaining walls constructed on the allotment
boundary, except where indicated on approved plans or approved by Council.

PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF THE OCCUPATION CERTIFICATE

These conditions have been imposed to ensure that all works
have been completed in accordance with the Development Consent prior to the
issue of the Occupation Certificate.

36. OCC12.19
- Works as Executed and Certification of Stormwater works - PriortotheissueofanOccupationCertificate,thePrincipalCertifyingAuthoritymustensurethatthestormwater
drainage
system has been constructed
in accordance with the
approved
design and relevant Australian
Standards.

A works-as-executed drainage plan and certification must be
forwarded to the Principal Certifying Authority and Georges River Council, from
a suitably qualified and experienced Hydraulic Consultant/Engineer.

This Plan and Certification shall confirm that the design
and construction of the stormwater drainage system satisfies the conditions of
development consent and the Construction Certificate stormwater design details
approved by the Certifying Authority.

The works-as-executed drainage plan must be prepared
by a suitably qualified and experienced Hydraulic Engineer in conjunction with
a Registered Surveyor and the works-as-executed plan must include the following
details:

37. OCC12.27 - Vehicular
crossing - Minor development - The vehicular crossing and/or footpath works
shall be constructed by a private contractor at the expense of the applicant,
in accordance with the Vehicular Crossing Approval issued by Council’s
Engineering Services Division and in accordance with Council’s
Specification for Vehicular Crossings and Associated Works and the
issued.

Any existing vehicular crossing and/or laybacks which are redundant must
be removed. The kerb and gutter, any other footpath and turf areas shall be
restored at the expense of the applicant and in accordance with Council’s
Specification for Vehicular Crossings and Associated Works.

NOTE: No stencilled or coloured concrete may be used outside the boundary
of the property.

The work must be completed before the issue of an Occupation Certificate.

38. OCC12.4 - BASIX
Certificate - All energy efficiency measures as detailed in the approved
BASIX Certificate in the plans approved with the Development Consent, must be
implemented before issue of any Occupation Certificate.

39. OCC12.5 - BASIX
Compliance Certificate - A Compliance Certificate must be provided to the
PCA regarding the implementation of all energy efficiency measures as detailed
in the approved BASIX Certificate before any Occupation Certificate is issued.

40. OCC12.6 - Completion
of Landscape Works - All landscape works must be completed before the issue
of the Final Occupation Certificate.

41. OCC12.7 - Post
Construction Dilapidation report - Private Land - At the completion of the
construction works, a suitably qualified person is to be engaged to prepare a
post-construction dilapidation report. This report is to ascertain
whether the construction works associated with the subject development created
any structural damage to the following adjoining premises:

The report is to be prepared at the expense of the applicant and
submitted to the PCA prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate. In
ascertaining whether adverse structural damaged has occurred to the adjoining
premises, the PCA, must compare the post-construction dilapidation report with
the pre-construction dilapidation report required by conditions in this
consent.

Evidence confirming that a copy of the post-construction dilapidation
report was delivered to the adjoining properties subject of the dilapidation
report must be provided to the PCA prior to the issue of any Occupation
Certificate.

42. OCC12.9 - Driveways
and parking spaces - Minor Development - Internal driveways and parking
spaces are to be adequately paved with concrete or bitumen, or interlocking
pavers to provide a dust-free surface.

ONGOING CONDITIONS

These conditions have been imposed to ensure that the use
or operation of the development does not adversely impact on the amenity of the
neighbourhood or environment.

43. ONG14.27 - Amenity
of the neighbourhood - The implementation of this development shall not
adversely affect the amenity of the neighbourhood or interfere unreasonably
with the comfort or repose of a person who is outside the premises by reason of
the emission or discharge of noise, fumes, vapour, odour, steam, soot, dust,
waste water, waste products, grit, oil or other harmful products.

44. ONG14.5 - Maintenance
of Landscaping - All trees and plants forming part of the landscaping must
be maintained. Maintenance includes watering, weeding, removal of rubbish
from tree bases, fertilizing, pest and disease control, replacement of dead or
dying plants and any other operations required to maintain healthy trees,
plants and turfed areas.

ADVICE

This advice has been included to provide additional
information and where available direct the applicant to additional sources of
information based on the development type.

45. ADV17.13 - Site
Safety Fencing - Site fencing must be erected in accordance with SafeWork
Guidelines, to exclude public access to the site throughout the demolition
and/or construction work, except in the case of alterations to an occupied
dwelling. The fencing must be erected before the commencement of any work and
maintained throughout any demolition and construction work.

A demolition licence and/or a high risk work license may be required from
SafeWork NSW (see www.SafeWork.nsw.gov.au).

46. ADV17.2 - Long
Service Levy - The Long Service Corporation administers a scheme which
provides a portable long service benefit for eligible workers in the building
and construction industry in NSW. All benefits and requirements are determined
by the Building and Construction Industry Long Service Payments Act 1986. More
information about the scheme and the levy amount you are required to pay to
satisfy a condition of your consent can be found at
http://www.longservice.nsw.gov.au.

The required Long Service Levy payment can be direct to the Long Service
Corporation via their web site
https://online.longservice.nsw.gov.au/bci/levy. Payments can only be
processed on-line for the full levy owing and where the value of work is
between $25,000 and $6,000,000. Payments will be accepted for amounts up to
$21,000, using either MasterCard or Visa.

47. ADV17.5 - Security
deposit administration & compliance fee - Under Section 97 (5) of the
Local Government Act 1993, a security deposit (or part) if repaid to the person
who provided it is to be repaid with any interest accrued on the deposit (or
part) as a consequence of its investment.

Council must cover administration and other costs incurred in the
investment of these monies. The current charge is $50.00 plus 2% of the bond
amount per annum.

The interest rate applied to bonds is set at Council's business banking
facility rate as at 1 July each year. Council will accept a bank
guarantee in lieu of a deposit.

All interest earned on security deposits will be used to offset the
Security Deposit Administration and Compliance fee. Where interest earned on a
deposit is not sufficient to meet the fee, it will be accepted in full
satisfaction of the fee.

48. ADV17.7 - Council
as PCA - Deemed to Satisfy Provisions of BCA - Should the Council be
appointed as the PCA in determining the Construction Certificate, the building
must comply with all the applicable deemed to satisfy provision of the
BCA. However, if an alternative fire solution is proposed it must comply
with the performance requirements of the BCA, in which case, the alternative
solution, prepared by an appropriately qualified fire consultant, accredited
and having specialist qualifications in fire engineering, must justifying the
non-compliances with a detailed report, suitable evidence and expert judgement.
Council will also require if deemed necessary, for the alternative solution to
undergo an independent peer review by either the CSIRO or other accredited
organisation. In these circumstances, the applicant must pay all costs
for the independent review.

Schedule B – Prescribed Conditions

Prescribed conditions are those which are mandated under
Division 8A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000
and given weight by Section 80A (11) of the Environmental Planning and
Assessment Act 1979.

Detailed below is a summary of all the
prescribed conditions which apply to development in New South Wales. Please
refer to the full details of the prescribed conditions as in force, at www.legislation.nsw.gov.au.

It is the responsibility of the beneficiary of this consent
to determine which prescribed conditions apply.

49. PRES1001
- Clause 97A – BASIX Commitments - This Clause requires the
fulfilment of all BASIX Commitments as detailed in the BASIX Certificate to
which the development relates.

50. PRES1002
- Clause 98 – Building Code of Australia & Home Building Act 1989
- Requires all building work to be carried out in accordance with the Building
Code of Australia. In the case of residential building work to which the
Home Building Act 1989 relates, there is a requirement for a contract of
insurance to be in force before any work commences.

51. PRES1003
- Clause 98A – Erection of Signs - Requires the erection of signs
on site and outlines the details which are to be included on the sign.
The sign must be displayed in a prominent position on site and include the name
and contact details of the Principal Certifying Authority and the Principal
Contractor.

52. PRES1004
- Clause 98B – Home Building Act 1989 - If the development
involves residential building work under the Home Building Act 1989, no work is
permitted to commence unless certain details are provided in writing to
Council. The name and licence/permit number of the Principal Contractor
or Owner Builder and the name of the Insurer by which work is insured under
Part 6 of the Home Building Act 1989.

53. PRES1007
- Clause 98E – Protection & support of adjoining premises - If
the development involves excavation that extends below the level of the base of
the footings of a building on adjoining land, this prescribed condition
requires the person who benefits from the development consent to protect and
support the adjoining premises and where necessary underpin the adjoining
premises to prevent any damage.

Schedule C – Operational & Statutory
Conditions

These conditions comprise the operational and statutory
conditions which must be satisfied under the Environmental Planning and
Assessment Act 1979 and the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation
2000. Please refer to the full details of the Act and Regulations as in force,
at www.legislation.nsw.gov.au.

It is the responsibility of the beneficiary of this consent
to determine which operational and statutory conditions apply.

54. OPER1001
- Requirement for a Construction Certificate - The erection of a
building must not commence until a Construction Certificate has been issued by
the consent authority, the Council (if the Council is not the consent
authority) or an accredited certifier.

An application form for a Construction Certificateis attached for your convenience.

55. OPER1002
- Appointment of a Principal Certifying Authority - The erection of a
building must not commence until the beneficiary of the development consent
has:

(a) appointed a Principal
Certifying Authority (PCA) for the building work; and

(b) if relevant, advised
the PCA that the work will be undertaken as an Owner-Builder.

If the work is not going to be undertaken by an
Owner-Builder, then the beneficiary of the consent must:

(a) appoint a Principal
Contractor to undertake the building work. If residential building work (within
the meaning of the Home Building Act 1989) is to be undertaken, the Principal
Contractor must be a holder of a contractor licence; and

(b) notify the PCA of the
details of any such appointment; and

(c) notify the
Principal Contractor of any critical stage inspections or other inspections
that are required to be carried out in respect of the building work.

An Information Pack is attached for your
convenience should you wish to appoint Georges River Council as the Principal
Certifying Authority for your development.

56. OPER1003
- Notification of Critical Stage Inspections - No later than two (2)
days before the building work commences, the PCA must notify:

(a) the consent authority
and the Council (if not the consent authority) of his or her appointment; and

(b) the beneficiary of the
development consent of the critical stage inspections and other inspections
that are to be carried out with respect to the building work.

57. OPER1004
- Notice of Commencement - The beneficiary of the development consent
must give at least two (2) days notice to the Council and the PCA of their
intention to commence the erection of a building.

A Notice of Commencement Form is attached for
your convenience.

58. OPER1007
- Critical Stage Inspections - The last critical stage inspection must
be undertaken by the Principal Certifying Authority. The critical stage
inspections required to be carried out vary according to Building Class under
the Building Code of Australia and are listed in Clause 162A of the
Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.

59. OPER1008
- Notice to be given prior to critical stage inspections - The principal
contractor for a building site, or the owner-builder, must notify the principal
certifying authority at least 48 hours before each required inspection needs to
be carried out.

Where Georges
River Council has been appointed PCA, forty eight (48) hours notice in writing,
or alternatively twenty four (24) hours notice by facsimile or telephone, must
be given to when specified work requiring inspection has been completed.

60. OPER1009
- Occupation Certificate - A person must not commence occupation or use
of the whole or any part of a new building unless an Occupation Certificate has
been issued in relation to the building or part.

Only the Principal Certifying Authority appointed for the
building work can issue the Occupation Certificate.

An Occupation CertificateApplication Form is
attached for your convenience.

If you need more information, please contact the
Development Assessment Officer, below on 9330-6400 during normal office hours.

Georges River Council – Independent Hearing and
Assessment Panel Tuesday, 5 December 2017

Page 157

REPORT TO GEORGES RIVER COUNCIL

IHAP MEETING OF Tuesday, 05 December 2017

IHAP Report No

3.3

Application No

PP2017/0002

Site Address & Ward Locality

12-14 Pindari Road Peakhurst
Heights

Peakhurst Ward

Proposal

Revised Planning Proposal - Rezone
site from SP2 Infrastructure (Church and Community Purposes) to R2 Low
Density Residential with maximum FSR of 1:1 and building height of 9m

Report Author/s

Strategic Planner

Owners

Learning Links

Applicant

Capital Syndications Pty Ltd

Zoning

SP2 Infrastructure (Church
and Community Purpose)

Date Of Lodgement

8/06/2017

Submissions

N/A

Cost of Works

N/A

Reason for Referral to IHAP

For consideration and to seek
endorsement to present the revised Planning Proposal report to Council

Recommendation

1. That
the Georges River IHAP recommends to Council that the Planning Proposal to
amend Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 (HLEP 2012) as follows, be
forwarded to the delegate of the Greater Sydney Commission for a Gateway
Determination under Section 56 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment
Act 1979:

a. To
change the land use zoning from SP2 Church and Community Purpose to R2 Low
Density Residential;

b. To
include a maximum Floor Space Ratio (FSR) control of 1:1;

c. To
include a maximum building height of 9m.

d. To
amend Schedule 1 to include the following additional uses for the site:
office premises; restaurant or café.

2. That
a report to Council be prepared to advise of the IHAP recommendations.

Site Plan

Figure 1: Aerial view of 12-14 Pindari Road, Peakhurst
Heights

Executive Summary

1. A
Planning Proposal was lodged by Capital Syndications Pty Ltd for the site at
12-14 Pindari Road, Peakhurst Heights (refer Figure 1) to amend the
Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 (“HLEP 2012”).

2. The
IHAP considered the Planning Proposal for the site at its meeting on 26 October
2017. The proposal presented to the IHAP was to rezone the site from SP2
Infrastructure (Church and Community Purpose) to B1 Neighbourhood Centre and
include a maximum Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 1.5:1 and maximum building height
control of 9m, consistent with the adjoining B1 Neighbouring Centre. Note: The
SP2 Infrastructure Zone does not have FSR and height controls.

3. The
IHAP resolved to defer the Planning Proposal at the request of the proponent
and recommended that the proponent address the following:

· Consistency
of the existing zoning pattern;

· The
required land uses for the continued operation of Learning Links and to ensure
the future long term economic viability of the site; and

· Built
form controls that minimise the adverse impact on the adjoining low scale R2
Low Density Residential development. It is advisable that a built form
analysis of the proposed controls is undertaken.

4. In
making the decision to defer the planning proposal, the Georges River IHAP
discussed with the proponent the following recommended changes to the current
planning controls:

· A
change to the land use zoning from SP2 Church and Community Purpose to R2 Low
Density Residential;

· Changing
the maximum Floor Space Ratio (FSR) control to 1:1;

· Changing
the maximum building height to 9m; and

· Amending
Schedule 1 to include Educational establishments as an additional land use for
the subject property.

5. The
Panel provided the following reasons for its decision:

The Panel
did not consider the proposed change of the zoning to B1 to be an appropriate
planning outcome in relation to the existing and likely future zoning and built
form The Panel did not consider the proposed change of the zoning to B1
Neighbourhood Centre to be an appropriate planning outcome in relation
to the existing and likely future zoning and built form outcome.

6. This
report considers the Planning Proposal in regards to Division 10 Existing uses
of Part 4 Development assessment of the Environmental Planning and Assessment
Act 1979 and deems the ‘centre-based child care facility’ component
of the site to be permissible on the subject site.

7. By
letter dated 6 November 2017 the proponent has written to Council in response
to the deferral and has advised as follows:

· That
they accept a change in the proposed zoning from B1 to R2 with site specific
permissions within Schedule 1 to the LEP;

· That
they accept a maximum Floor Space Ratio (FSR) control of 1:1;

· That
they agree to a maximum building height to 9m;

· That
amending Schedule 1 to include Educational establishments as an additional land
use for the subject property does not assist Learning Links as they do not meet
the criteria for an educational establishment under the NSW Standard Instrument
for LEPs;

· That
Schedule 1 includes the following additional uses for the site: office
premises; restaurant or café.

8. This
report recommends that the IHAP support the requested amendments to the HLEP
2012 and that the Planning Proposal be forwarded to the delegate of the Greater
Sydney Commission for a Gateway Determination under Section 56 of the
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

9. Although
the proposal seeks a rezoning from SP2 to R2, which will result in a broader
range of land uses being permitted on the site, the proposal does not seek
development uplift given that there are currently no FSR or height controls
under the SP2 Infrastructure zone and the proposal is requesting height and FSR
controls that are consistent with the adjoining R2/B1 zones.

10. The formula in
Council’s VPA Policy for calculating land value capture, applies to
existing residual value under the LEP and the proposed residual land
value under the PP or DA.

11. The proposal also
provides a significant public benefit to the community by providing services
for children with learning difficulties. The existing development is a
community facility registered as a not for profit organisation. As such,
Council has not applied the Voluntary Planning Agreement (“VPA”)
Policy (adopted 1 August 2016) to the Planning Proposal.

Report in Full

Proposal

12. The request to
prepare a Planning Proposal (PP2017/0002) for two (2) lots at the Leaning Links
site (No. 12-14 Pindari Road, Peakhurst Heights) was submitted by Capital
Syndications Pty Ltd on behalf of the owner on 8 June 2017.

13. The two lots are
known as Lot 58 DP 206906 and Lot 59 of DP 206906 and have a primary street
frontage to Pindari Road and a secondary frontage to Pindari Road Reserve.

14. The Planning
Proposal lodged on 8 June 2017 sought:

· To
change the land use zoning from SP2 Church and Community Purpose to B1
Neighbourhood Centre;

· To
include a maximum Floor Space Ratio (FSR) control of 1.5:1; and

· To
include a maximum building height of 9m.

15. The IHAP
considered the Planning Proposal for the site at its meeting on 26 October
2017. The IHAP resolved to defer the Planning Proposal at the request of the
proponent and recommended that the proponent address the following:

· Consistency
of the existing zoning pattern;

· The
required land uses for the continued operation of Learning Links and to ensure
the future long term economic viability of the site; and

· Built
form controls that minimise the adverse impact on the adjoining low scale R2
Low Density Residential development. It is advisable that a built form
analysis of the proposed controls is undertaken.

16. In making the
decision to defer the planning proposal, the Georges River IHAP discussed with
the proponent the following recommended changes to the current planning
controls:

· A
change to the land use zoning from SP2 Church and Community Purpose to R2 Low
Density Residential;

· Changing
the maximum Floor Space Ratio (FSR) control to 1:1;

· Changing
the maximum building height to 9m; and

· Amending
Schedule 1 to include Educational establishments as an additional land use for
the subject property.

17. The Panel
provided the following reasons for its decision:

The Panel did
not consider the proposed change of the zoning to B1 to be an appropriate
planning outcome in relation to the existing and likely future zoning and built
form The Panel did not consider the proposed change of the zoning to B1
Neighbourhood Centre to be an appropriate planning outcome in relation
to the existing and likely future zoning and built form outcome.

18. As a result of
the IHAP consideration of the Planning Proposal at its meeting on 26 October
2017, the Planning Proposal has been amended by letter dated 6 November 2017
from Innova Capital and now requests the following:

· To
change the land use zoning from SP2 Church and Community Purpose to R2 Low
Density Residential zone;

· To
include a maximum Floor Space Ratio (FSR) control of 1:1;

· To include
a maximum building height of 9m; and

· To
amend Schedule 1 to include the following additional uses for the site: office
premises; restaurant or café.

19. The Planning
Proposal as amended also proposes to include maximum FSR and building height controls
for the site that are consistent with adjoining R2 Zoning. The maximum FSR
proposed is 1.1 and the maximum building height proposed is 9m.

20. The proposed
zoning and development standard changes are shown in Figures 10to12 below.

The Site and Locality

21. The subject site
includes two (2) lots within a combined area of 1,170m2 which are
known as No. 12-14 Pindari Road, Peakhurst Heights and comprise:

· Lot
58 in DP 206906 (No. 12 Pindari Road) is generally rectangular in shape which
measures approximately 580m2 and has a frontage of approximately
15.85m to Pindari Road.

· Lot
59 in DP 206906 (No. 14 Pindari Road) is irregular in shape which measures
approximately 590m2 and has a frontage of approximately 18.97m to
Pindari Road and 38.105m to Pindari Road Reserve.

22. The subject site
is owned and occupied by Learning Links which from a legal entity perspective
is a company. Learning Links provide a range of services that help support
children with learning difficulties and disabilities such as speech pathology
and occupational therapy.

23. By letter dated 6
November 2017 Innova Capital has advised that Learning Links is not defined as
an educational establishment under the NSW Standard Instrument for Local
Environmental Plan as it does not meet the criteria for the definition of an
“educational establishment” which is defined as:

educational establishment means a building or place used for
education (including teaching), being:

(a) a school, or

(b) a tertiary institution, including a university or a TAFE
establishment, that provides formal education and is constituted by or under an
Act.

24. The subject site
consists of the following building and open space elements as shown in Figures
2, 3 to 4 below:

· An
elevated building facing Pindari Road with basement area (former church
building) that is partitioned as used as an administrative office, tuition
rooms and storage space.

· A
single storey building to the rear of the site accessed from Pindari Road
Reserve that is connected to the main building. This is used as a child care
centre (pre-school).

· An
outdoor play and recreation area that is partly covered and adjoins the
neighbouring dwelling at No. 10 Pindari Road. A high security gate to the
outdoor play area runs along the Pindari Road front boundary.

Figure
2: Site as viewed from Pindari Road frontage

Figure
3: Site viewed from Pindari Road Reserve

Figure
4: Outdoor play/recreation area as viewed from Pindari Road

25. A summary of the
surrounding land is provided below and shown in Figures 5 and 6 below:

· North:
To the north of the site are low density residential dwelling houses. No.10
Pindari Road which immediately adjoins the site is a single storey brick
dwelling house with pitched roof form and side carport. No. 8 Pindari Road is a
two storey dwelling house with pitched roof form.

· East:
To the east of the site, on the opposite side of Pindari Road, is Peakhurst
South Public School.

· South:
Immediately to the south of the site is a public open space area that is known
as Pindari Road Reserve. The child care component of the subject site is
accessed from this reserve. Further south of the reserve is the Peakhurst
Heights Pindari Road Neighbourhood Centre.

· West:
To the west of the site are low density dwelling houses that front Karwarra
Place, which is a cul-de-sac. The rear boundaries of Nos. 4 and 5
Karwarra Place border the rear boundary of the subject site.

26. It should
be noted that there are no heritage items on or within the vicinity of the
site.

Figure
5: Adjoining low density residential uses along Pindari Road

Figure
6: Adjacent shop top housing development in the

Peakhurst
Height Pindari Road Neighbourhood Centre

EXISTING PLANNING CONTROLS

27. The Hurstville
LEP 2012 applies to the site and the following provisions are relevant to the
Planning Proposal:

Zoning

28. The site is zoned
SP2 Infrastructure (Church and Community Purpose) as shown on the extract of
the Land Zoning Map – Sheet LZN_002 below (Figure 7).

29. The adjoining
land to the south is zoned RE1 Public Recreation and B1 Neighbourhood Centre.
Peakhurst South Public School on the opposite side of Pindari Road is zoned SP2
Infrastructure (Educational Establishment).

30. The current SP2
zone under the HLEP 2012 restricts redevelopment of sites for alternative uses
by prohibiting all development types except for “roads” and
“for the purposes shown on the Land Zoning Map”.

31. With respect to
the subject site, the Land Zoning Map identifies the site for “Church and
Community purpose” uses only. The Learning Links component of the site is
defined as a community facility under the HLEP 2012 and is therefore a permissible
use in the SP2 zone. However, the centre-based child care facility, although
previously approved, is prohibited under the current SP2 zone of the HLEP 2012.
The child care centre was approved by the former Municipality of Hurstville in
1968 (refer to discussion below in paragraph 46).

32. The SP2
Infrastructure zone under the HLEP 2012 is considered overly restrictive to
allow the range of uses that are existing on the site and is out of date as the
site has not been used as a public of public worship for over 25 years.

33. An assessment was
undertaken as to the most appropriate future zoning of the site, consistent
with the surrounding zoning. The intention of Learning Links is to formalise
the existing uses on the site and to allow future expansion of the community
facility to permit offices ancillary to the existing uses, health consulting
rooms.

34. With respect to
the adjoining R2 – Low Density Residential Zone, the objective of the
zone is to provide for the housing needs of the community as well as to
encourage development of sites for a range of housing types. Community
facilities, health consulting rooms and centre based child care
facilities would be permissible in the R2 – Low Density Residential
zone. The additional land uses sought by the proponent - office premises;
restaurant or café – would need to be included in Schedule 1 to
the Hurstville LEP 2012.

35. This approach
would allow the primary use of the site as a community facility being
maintained. The proposed zoning – now R2 and maximum FSR (1:1) and height
limits (9m) are considered appropriate in the context of the adjoining low
density residential development. It should be noted that the adjoining low
density residential zone and the adjoining B1 Neighbourhood Centre zone both
set height limits of 9m.

Figure 7: Extract of Hurstville LEP 2012 – Land
Zoning Map

Land Uses

36. The existing uses
on the site are defined as a ‘community facility’ and a ‘centre-based
child care facility’ under the HLEP 2012. Under the SP2 Zoning of the
site child care centres are prohibited. Both of these uses are however
permitted in a R2 Low Density Residential Zone.

37. The HLEP 2012
defines ‘community facility’ as:

“a building or place:

(a) Owned or controlled by a public authority or non-profit
organisation, and

(b) Use for physical, social, cultural or intellectual development
or welfare of the community,

But does not
include an educational establishment, hospital, retail premises, place of
public worship or residential accommodation”.

38. The HLEP 2012 defines
a ‘centre-based child care facility’ as:

“(a)
a building or place used for the education and care of children that provides
any one or more of the following:

(i) long day care,

(ii) occasional child
care,

(iii) out-of-school-hours care
(including vacation care),

(iv) preschool care, or

(b) an approved family day care venue (within the meaning of the
Children (Education and Care Services) National Law (NSW),

but does not include:

(c) a building or place used for home-based child care or
school-based child care, or

(d) an office of a family day care service (within the meanings of
the Children (Education and Care Services) National Law (NSW), or

(e) a babysitting, playgroup or child-minding service that is
organised informally by the parents of the children concerned, or

(f) a child minding service that is provided in
connection with recreational or commercial facility (such as a gymnasium) to
care for children while the children’s parents are using the facility, or

(g) a service that is concerned primarily with providing lessons or
coaching in, or providing for participation in, a cultural, recreational,
religious or sporting activity, or providing private tutoring, or

(h) a child-minding service that is provided by or in a
health services facility, but only if the service is established, registered or
licensed as part of the institution operating in the facility”.

39. Learning Links
was community founded and has evolved into a community body that has government
recognition and some government funding. The legal entity is that of a company
limited by guarantee, which is a specialist form of public company expressively
designed for non-profit organisations. It is not defined as an educational
establishment.

Development Standards

40. Height of
Buildings: the site has no nominated maximum building height as shown on the
extract of the Height of Buildings Map – Sheet HOB_002 below (Figure 8).

41. The adjoining and
surrounding land has a maximum building height of 9m.

Figure 8: Extract of Hurstville LEP 2012 – Height
of Buildings Map

42. Floor Space
Ratio: the site has no nominated maximum Floor Space Ratio as shown on the
extract of the Height of Buildings Map – Sheet FSR_002 below (Figure 9).

43. The surrounding
and adjoining low density residential housing has a maximum FSR of 0.6:1. Land
to the south in the B1 Neighbourhood Centre zone has a maximum FSR of 1.5:1.

Figure 9: Extract
of Hurstville LEP 2012 – Floor Space Ratio Map

APPLICANT’S PLANNING
PROPOSAL REQUEST

44. The chronological
events of the Planning Proposal are described below:

· On
8 June 2017, the applicant’s Planning Proposal (PP2017/0002) was lodged
with Council.

· On
19 June 2017, an email was sent to the applicant setting out areas to be
further addressed in the Planning Proposal.

· On
10 July 2017, the applicant submitted the additional information requested by
Council.

· On
4 August 2017, the applicant submitted an amended Planning Proposal with
proposed mapping.

· On
26 October 2017 IHAP resolved to defer the Planning Proposal and recommended
the following changes to the Planning Proposal:

o A change to the land
use zoning from SP2 Church and Community Purpose to R2 Low Density Residential;

o Changing the maximum
Floor Space Ratio (FSR) control to 1:1;

o Changing the maximum
building height to 9m; and

o Amending Schedule 1
to include Educational establishments as an additional land use for the subject
property

o

· By
letter dated 6 November 2017 the proponent amended the Planning Proposal to
seek the following:

o To change the land
use zoning from SP2 Church and Community Purpose to R2 Low Density Residential;

o To include a maximum
Floor Space Ratio (FSR) control of 1:1;

o To include a maximum
building height of 9m.

o To amend Schedule 1
to include the following additional uses for the site: office premises;
restaurant or café.

45. The site has a
long history of being owned and occupied by Learning Links which is a community
facility and associated child care centre.

46. Council’s
records show the following Building Application and Development Application
approvals for the site:

· BA-758
was granted in 1968 by the former Municipality of Hurstville to use the rear of
the site as a “pre-school kindergarten”. At this time, the site was
being used as a place of public worship by the Baptist Church’.

· DA
479/90 was granted on 18 December 1990 by former Hurstville City Council for
office space and after school accommodation.

· Section
96 Modification for DA 479/90 was granted on 10 May 1995 to amend Condition 4
relating to operating hours. The S96 states that “the pre-school operates
between the hours of 9.00am and 4.30pm, Monday to Friday. The office and after
school accommodation operates between the hours of 9.00am and 7.00pm, Monday to
Friday”.

· DA
970/99 was granted on 9 December 1999 by former Hurstville City Council for
access stairs and ramp to front of building.

47. The SP2
Infrastructure zone was not extensively reviewed in the preparation of the HLEP
2012. The SP2 zone under the HLEP 2012 restricts redevelopment of sites for
alternative uses by prohibiting all development types except for
“roads” and “for the purposes shown on the Land Zoning
Map”.

48. In regards to the
subject site, the Land Zoning Map identifies the site for “Church and
Community purpose” uses only. The Learning Links component of the site is
defined as a community facility under the HLEP 2012 and is therefore a
permissible use in the SP2 zone. However, the centre-based child care facility,
although previously approved, is prohibited under the current SP2 zone of the
HLEP 2012. The child care centre was approved by the former Municipality of
Hurstville in 1968 (as detailed above in paragraph 46).

49. The SP2
Infrastructure zone under the HLEP 2012 is considered overly restrictive. The
current SP2 zoning for the site is considered out-dated. The site has not been
used as a public of public worship for over 25 years.

50. The proposed R2
Low Density Residential zoning for the site and the additional Schedule 1 uses
(office premises; restaurant or café) allows for the continuation of the
existing uses on site within a permissible zone. The primary use of the site as
a community facility is being maintained. The proposed zoning and maximum FSR
and height limits are considered appropriate. The adjoining low density
residential zone and the adjoining B1 Neighbourhood Centre zone both set height
limits of 9m.

Summary of Planning Proposal
Request

51. The
Planning Proposal request submitted on 4 August 2017 included the following
documents which form the basis of the Planning Proposal request considered in
this report:

(1)
This clause applies to land at 12 and 14 Pindari Road Peakhurst being Lot 58
and Lot 59 DP.206906.

(2)
Development for the purpose of an office premises; restaurant or café is
permitted with development consent.

54. The
proposed changes to the LEP maps are outlined below (Figures 10 to 12):

Figure 10: Proposed R2 Low Density Residential Zone

Figure 11: Proposed Building Height Map to 9m

Figure 12: Proposed FSR Map of 1:1

THE PLANNING PROPOSAL

55. The
Planning Proposal has been assessed under the relevant sections of the
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and Regulation 2000 and against
the following advisory documents prepared by the Department of Planning and
Environment:

a. “A
guide to preparing planning proposals” (August 2016).

b. “A
guide to preparing local environmental plans” (August 2016).

56. Section
55 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 outlines that a
planning proposal must explain the intended effect and the justification for
making the proposed instrument and must include the following components:

· A statement of the
objectives and intended outcomes of the proposed instrument (Part 1).

· An explanation of
the provisions that are to be included in the proposed instrument (Part 2).

· The justification
for those objectives, outcomes and the process for their implementation (Part
3).

· Maps, where
relevant, to identify the intent of the planning proposal and the area to which
it applies (Part 4).

· Details of the community
consultation that is to be undertaken on the planning proposal (Part 5).

57. The
information below addresses the requirements for Planning Proposals.

Objectives and Intended Outcomes

58. The
objective of the Planning Proposal is to amend the Hurstville LEP 2012 by:

a. Changing
the land use zoning from SP2 Infrastructure (Church and Community Purpose) to
R2 Low Density Residential.

b. Providing
a height of building control of 9m (currently there is no maximum height).

c. Providing
a Floor Space Ratio control of 1:1 (currently there is no maximum FSR).

a. Ensure
the existing and approved use of the land is a permissible form of development
in the zone.

b. Ensure
principal building envelope controls (height and FSR) are legislated to allow
for any future redevelopment of the site.

c. Provide
certainty in the community in relation to any future redevelopment of the site.

Explanation of Provisions

60. The proposed
intended outcomes will be achieved by amending the Hurstville LEP 2012 as
follows:

a. Amend the Land Zoning Map to rezone site from SP2
Infrastructure (Church and Community Purpose) to R2 Low Density Residential.

b. Amend the Height of Buildings Map to include a maximum
height limit of 9m.

c. Amend the Floor Space Ratio Map to include a maximum
FSR of 1:1.

d. Amend
Schedule 1 – Additional Permitted Uses to include office
premises; restaurant or café as being permitted with consent on the
site

61. It is noted that
currently under the HLEP 2012 there are no maximum height or FSR controls for
the site due to its SP2 Infrastructure zoning.

62. The Planning
Proposal seeks to adopt the standard controls that apply to the development of
R2 Low Density Residential zoned land from the perspective of permissible uses
and maximum building heights. This is considered appropriate given the
surrounding context and the existing usage of the site as a community facility
and centre-based child care facility.

63. The maximum FSR
surrounding the site is 0.6:1. The Planning Proposal seeks an FSR of 1:1.

64. The Planning
Proposal impacts the relevant zoning map, height of buildings map and FSR map.
The Planning Proposal also impacts Schedule 1 to the Hurstville Local
Environmental Plan 2012.

Strategic Planning Context

65. The revised draft
South District Plan (October 2017) and draft Greater Sydney Region Plan A
Metropolis of Three Cities are on public exhibition until mid-December 2017 and
apply to the Georges River Council area.

66. Consideration of
the Planning Proposal request in relation to the current plans and strategies
(A Plan for Growing Sydney (Metropolitan Strategy), draft plans, draft Greater
Sydney Region Plan A Metropolis of Three Cities, draft revised South District
Plan, Hurstville Community Strategic Plan 2025 and Draft Employment Lands Study
is provided below.

A Plan for Growing Sydney
(Metropolitan Strategy)

67. The Planning Proposal
is consistent with the aims of A Plan for Growing Sydney which was adopted in
December 2014. It achieves the following relevant Goals and Directions:

68. The Planning
Proposal will contribute towards achieving this Direction by retaining
employment land that is currently used as a child care centre and community
facility that helps support children with learning difficulties and
disabilities. The location of the site, opposite Peakhurst South Public School,
benefits the community and future residents.

Goal
3: Sydney’s great
places to live

· Direction
3.1: Revitalise existing suburbs

69. The Planning
Proposal will contribute towards achieving this Direction by allowing
permissible uses that revitalise the local community and contribute to an
attractive suburb. The proposal ensures the site be used for employment land
providing business activity for the area and meeting the needs of a growing
population.

Draft Greater Sydney Region
Plan – A metropolis of three cities

70. The
draft Greater Sydney Region Plan has ten directions:

· A city supported
by infrastructure

· A collaborative city

· A city for people

· Housing the city

· A city of great
places

· A well connected
city

· Jobs and skills
for the city

· A city in its
landscape

· An efficient city

· A resilient city

71. The
Planning Proposal is not inconsistent with the ten provisions of the draft
Plan.

Draft South
District Plan

72. In
relation to the revised draft South District Plan (October 2017) which proposes
a 20 year vision for the South District, the Planning Proposal is consistent
with the following planning priorities:

· Planning Priority
S1 Planning for a city supported by infrastructure

· Planning Priority
S18 Adapting to the impacts of urban and natural hazards and climate change

73. The
Planning Proposal to rezone the site to R2 Low Density Residential addresses a
number of planning priorities in the Plan but specifically in relation to: S3
Providing services and social infrastructure to meet people’s changing
needs; S4 Fostering healthy, creative, culturally rich and socially connected
communities; S6 Creating and renewing great places and local centres, and
respecting the District’s heritage; and S8 Growing and investing in
health and education precincts, and Bankstown Airport trade gateway as economic
catalysts for the District.

74. The
proposal protects the employment land of the Learning Links site and the
provision of existing children’s educational support services in the
local community.

75. The
proposed rezoning provides opportunities for new ancillary uses to cluster
around existing health and education facilities. The site’s immediate
adjacency and accessibility to Peakhurst South Public School addresses
priorities of the Plan in relation to planning for connected and stronger
economic and employment centres where proximity of health and educations assets
creates significant opportunity to drive economic activity and a sustainable
and liveable city.

Hurstville Community Strategic
Plan 2025

76. The former
Hurstville City Council endorsed the Hurstville Community Strategic Plan 2025
on 3 June 2015. It is the overarching strategy for Council’s objectives
and operations. The Planning Proposal is not inconsistent with the principles
of the Plan.

Draft
Employment Lands Study

77. A
report on the draft Georges River Employment Lands Study was considered by
Council at its meeting on 3 April 2017 where Council resolved to place the
draft Study on public exhibition.

78. The
area to the south of the subject site is zoned B1 – Neighbourhood Centre
zone and is known as the Peakhurst Heights – Pindari Road Precinct

79. The
draft Study considers Peakhurst Heights – Pindari Road Precinct
as a centre that has opportunity to accommodate growth. The Precinct is zoned
B1 Neighbourhood Centre. Key land uses in the zone are neighbourhood shops and
shop top housing such as hairdressing, yoga studio, and podiatry.

80. Surrounding
land uses are predominantly low density residential. The Learning Links site
and Peakhurst South Public School are located on Pindari Road and adjoin the
Precinct.

81. The
current development standards within the Precinct are a maximum FSR of 1.5:1
and building height limit of 9m. The draft Study makes the following
recommendations in respect to the Peakhurst Heights – Pindari Road
Precinct:

a. Retain
the existing B1 – Neighbourhood Centre Zone.

b. Increase
the maximum permitted height of buildings from 9m to 12m so as to allow
realisation of the maximum FSR of 1.5:1.

c. Review
land uses in the B1 – Neighbourhood Centre zone to allow additional land
uses.

82. The
draft Study identifies the opportunity across all B1 Neighbourhood Centres as
an increase of permitted maximum height of building. The current height limits
the potential for the permitted FSR of 1.5:1 to be realised.

83. The
subject site is not included in the Peakhurst Heights – Pindari
Road Precinct as it is not currently zoned B1 Neighbourhood Centre.

84. The
Learning Links facility is one of the largest employers in the Peakhurst
Heights – Pindari Road Precinct. The site generates a significant amount
of employment for the local area and wider community.

85. It
comprises approximately 22 full time staff, 47 part time staff, 122 causal
staff and 1 volunteer. Submissions on behalf of the subject site were made
during the public exhibition of the draft Employments Lands Study requesting
consideration of inclusion into the Peakhurst Heights – Pindari Road
Precinct.

86. The
site, despite currently being zoned SP2 Infrastructure plays a vital role in
providing employment for the precinct. The Planning Proposal supports the
viability of the Peakhurst Heights – Pindari Road Precinct.

State and Regional Statutory
Framework

87. State
Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPs) deal with matters of State or regional
environmental planning significance. A review of the prevailing list of SEPPs
was conducted by the applicant at the time of lodgement (dated 8 June 2017) and
no applicable SEPP was identified.

88. On 1 September
2017, the State Environmental Planning Policy (Educational Establishments and
Child Care Facilities) 2017 was gazetted.

89. The SEPP aims to facilitate the effective delivery of
educational establishments and early education and care facilities across the
State by:

(a) improving
regulatory certainty and efficiency through a consistent planning regime for
educational establishments and early education and care facilities, and

(b) simplifying and
standardising planning approval pathways for educational establishments and
early education and care facilities (including identifying certain development
of minimal environmental impact as exempt development), and

(c) establishing
consistent State-wide assessment requirements and design considerations for
educational establishments and early education and care facilities to improve
the quality of infrastructure delivered and to minimise impacts on surrounding
areas, and

(d) allowing for the
efficient development, redevelopment or use of surplus government-owned land
(including providing for consultation with communities regarding educational
establishments in their local area), and

(e) providing for
consultation with relevant public authorities about certain development during
the assessment process or prior to development commencing, and

(f) aligning
the NSW planning framework with the National Quality Framework that regulates
early education and care services, and

(g) ensuring that
proponents of new developments or modified premises meet the applicable
requirements of the National Quality Framework for early education and care
services, and of the corresponding regime for State regulated education and
care services, as part of the planning approval and development process, and

(h) encouraging
proponents of new developments or modified premises and consent authorities to
facilitate the joint and shared use of the facilities of educational
establishments with the community through appropriate design.

90. The
SEPP also introduces a common
assessment framework made up of the Child Care Planning Guideline and
non-discretionary development standards. The Guideline contains key
national requirements and planning and design guidance for child care
facilities and will generally prevail over local development control plans.

91. The Planning
Proposal is considered to be consistent with the aims of the SEPP by
legitimising the existing centre-based child care facility land use on the
subject site and henceforth allowing future upgrades and/or expansion of the
early education facility on site. This will ensure the essential services
currently provided on the site are protected whilst promoting the employment
growth and viability of the Peakhurst Heights Neighbourhood Centre.

S117
MINISTERIAL DIRECTIONS

92. Ministerial
Directions under Section 117 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act
1979 set out a range of matters to be considered when preparing an amendment to
a Local Environmental Plan.

93. The
Planning Proposal is consistent with all relevant ministerial directions as
assessed by the applicant in Table 1 below:

S117 Direction

Assessment

3.1
Residential Zones

The
proposal is consistent with the objectives of this direction. The Planning
proposal seeks to rezone the land from SP2 to R2. The R2 zone will allow a
range of residential uses as well as uses that support the local community.

6.3
Site Specific Provisions

The
proposal is consistent with the objectives of this direction. The site is
proposed to be rezoned to an existing zone already applying in the
environmental planning instrument that allows that land use without imposing
any development standards or requirements in addition to those already
contained in that zone.

The
proposal also seeks to amend Schedule 1 to include the following additional
uses for the site: office premises; restaurant or café.

7.1
Implementation of A Plan for Growing Sydney

The
proposal is consistent with the objectives of A Plan For Growing Sydney, as
assessed in report above.

EXISTING USE RIGHTS

94. Under Division 10
Existing uses of Part 4 Development assessment of the Environmental Planning
and Assessment Act 1979, existing use is defined as the use of a building, work
or land for which development consent was granted before the commencement of a
provision of an environmental planning instrument having the effect of
prohibiting the use.

95. In accordance
with the above definition, the existing development on the site is deemed to
possess existing use rights in that the use of a ‘centre-based child care
facility’ was approved prior to the commencement of the HLEP 2012. The
use was approved as a ‘pre-school kindergarten’ under BA-758 in
1968 by the former Municipality of Hurstville. The former Hurstville City
Council also approved ‘office space and after school accommodation’
in 1990 under development application DA 479/90.

96. The Planning
Proposal request to rezone the site from SP2 Infrastructure (Church and
Community Purpose) to R2 Low Density Residential Zone will ensure the
‘centre-based child care centre facility’ is a permissible form of
development in the zone. The existing child care centre benefits the community
which is the intent of the existing special use zone ‘Church and
Community Purpose’.

VOLUNTARY PLANNING AGREEMENT

97. The Voluntary
Planning Agreement (“VPA”) Policy was adopted on 1 August 2016 and
sets out Council’s objectives in relation to the use of planning
agreements. The Policy has been consistently applied to planning proposals and
development applications alike since its adoption.

98. Clause
5.3 of the Policy states that where either a Planning Proposal is proposed, or
development consent is sought, which will result in an exceedance of
development standards, resulting in an inherent increase in value of the land
or development, the concept of land value capture may be used to assess the
appropriate contribution.

99. Although the
proposal seeks a rezoning from SP2 to R2, which will result in a broader range
of land uses being permitted on the site, the proposal does not seek
development uplift given that there are currently no FSR or height controls
under the SP2 Infrastructure zone and the proposal is requesting height and FSR
controls that are consistent with the adjoining R2/B1 zones.

100. The formula in
Council’s VPA Policy for calculating land value capture, applies to
existing residual value under the LEP and the proposed residual land
value under the PP or DA. In this regard, it would be difficult to
assess the uplift as there may not be any uplift due to the existing use rights
on the land.

101. As outlined above, the
existing development is community facility registered as a not for profit
organisation. The site is owned by Learning Links and operates as a community
facility that services children with learning difficulties and disabilities
such as speech pathology and occupational therapy. The site also consists of a
community based pre-school that is owned and run by Learning Links.

102. The Planning Proposal is
seeking to validate the existing employment based land uses on the site and
allowing for a broadening of land uses that would be consistent with the
existing uses on the site by rezoning from SP2 to R2. The proposed height and
FSR are consistent with the adjoining R2/B1 zones, being 9m and 1:1

103. The proposal also provides a
significant public benefit to the community by providing services for children
with learning difficulties.

104. For these reasons, Council
has not applied the VPA Policy to the Planning Proposal.

Community Consultation

105. Should the Planning Proposal
be supported it will be forwarded to the Greater Sydney Commission (GSC)
requesting a Gateway Determination.

106. If a Gateway Determination
(Approval) is issued, and subject to its conditions, it is anticipated that the
Planning Proposal will be exhibited for a period of 28 days in accordance with
the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979
and Regulation, 2000 and any requirements of the Gateway Determination.

107. Exhibition material,
including explanatory information, land to which the Planning Proposal applies,
description of the objectives and intended outcomes, copy of the Planning
Proposal and relevant maps will be available for viewing during the exhibition
period on Council’s website and hard copies available at Council offices
and libraries.

108. Notification of the public
exhibition will be through:

· Newspaper
advertisement in The St George and Sutherland Shire Leader,

· Exhibition notice
on Council’s website,

· Notices in Council
offices and libraries,

· Letters to State
and Commonwealth Government agencies identified in the Gateway Determination
(if required),

109. The Planning Proposal
request to rezone the site from SP2 Infrastructure (Church and Community
Purpose) to R2 Low Density Residential Zone allows for the continuation of
existing and approved community facility and centre-based child care facility
uses.

110. The proposed R2 zoning is
considered an appropriate zone for the site. It allows for the continuation of
the existing uses on site within a permissible zone and provides greater
flexibility for redevelopment of the site for future upgrades and expansions.
The primary use of the site as a community facility is being maintained. The
proposed new zone ensures that future uses are compatible with existing
surrounding uses.

111. The proposed zoning and
maximum FSR and height limits are considered appropriate.

112. The anticipated the project
timeline for completion of the Planning Proposal is shown below:

Task

Anticipated Timeframe

Lodgement of Planning
Proposal request

8 June 2017

Report to Georges River
IHAP on Planning Proposal

December 2017 (this
report)

Report to Council on
Planning Proposal

December 2017

Anticipated
commencement date (date of Gateway determination)

March 2018

Anticipated timeframe
for completion of any further technical information

April 2018

Timeframe for
government agency consultation (pre and post exhibition as required by
Gateway determination)

May 2018

Commencement and
completion dates for community consultation period

June 2018

Dates for public
hearing (if required)

N/A

Timeframe for
consideration of submissions

July 2018

Reporting to Georges
River IHAP on community consultation

August 2018

Reporting to Council on
community consultation and finalisation

August 2018

Submission to the
Department to finalise the LEP

September 2018

Anticipated date for
notification.

September 2018

113. It is noted that the project
timeline will be assessed by the DPE and may be amended by the Gateway Determination.

NEXT STEPS

114. The Planning Proposal will
be considered at a future Georges River Council meeting (“the relevant
planning authority”) for consideration, including the IHAP
recommendations. If the Planning Proposal is endorsed by Council it will be
forwarded to the delegate of the Greater Sydney Commission for a Gateway
determination in accordance with Section 56 of the Environmental Planning and
Assessment Act 1979.

115. If Council resolves not to
support the Planning Proposal, the Applicant has the opportunity to request a
pre-Gateway Review by the Planning Panels under the delegation of the Greater
Sydney Commission. An applicant has 40 days from the date of notification of
Council’s decision to request a review.